Seriously, there is a two term limit here that is going to fall. If McCain wins a term in the Pres., I call Bloomberg is going to be front-runner for the Dems in 2012. You heard it here first. Or maybe he'll just run Ind., but still this guy has the 'fiscal' background that people are missing this time around. He's considered fiscally responsible and socially liberal. He think he could win the presidency, easy.

I like Bloomberg but (a) he's changed parties twice now and won't impress die-hard Democrats with that; (b) I expect Obama will be running for re-election in 2012; (c) if not, Hillary will be there again; (d) Bloomberg will be as old as McCain by then, won't he?

I'd rather have Obama name him to the cabinet.

He seems like a good candidate for either president's cabinet.

I saw the E:60 special on ESPN a while back about the new Yankee stadium, which included some interviews from Bloomberg.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3598021

Basically taxpayers are fronting the majority of the bill for a ridiculously expensive stadium of which the richest team in MLB isn't going to have to put hardly anything towards. The vote to get the stadium built was sent through at the end of a city council in a rushed fashion so that representatives wouldn't have time to read the proposal. Several have commented that they would have changed their vote if they had been allowed more time to research the plans.

Though it describes what the city is trying to do for the residents' park and sporting areas that it is displacing, the special on ESPN showed just how far away the new projects are that people would have to walk to. Now to play tennis or basketball people have to walk through massive construction zones to get somewhere 20-40 minutes away. It's misplaced a rec. football team. I know that the city of New York is currently being investigated by some federal agency to determine if anything illegal happened in the transactions between the Yankees and the city.

As Bloomberg correctly states, "You don't have progress unless you inconvenience a few people," which I tend to agree with. However, I think that this is more than an inconvenience for the people it is displacing at the expense of progress for the rich Yankees. The troubled areas near the stadium don't really have a chance of seeing a Yankee game in the deluxe suites (or even normal seats for that matter) in the new stadium, but now they don't have anything close by to help them keep engage in constructive extracurricular activities.

I don't know much about Bloomberg other than he's extremely rich. I definitely need to do so more research on him and his political stances, but this doesn't help my initial impressions.

second that

If Obama wins, clearly neither Hillary of Bloomberg are running next time. Hence why I didn't bother bringing it up. What I really think is that if Obama wins, Hillary will work on his cabinet and run eight years from now. If McCain wins I think she'll have a tougher fundraising period (like Edwards did this time around). Bloomberg would be the new face. Though, seriously, it would be my wet dream if the two of them ran on a ticket together. That, of course, would be every New Yorker's dream, which is why it'll never ever happen.

This country hates us.



Yep. And very true that I wouldn't mind him in either. Usually its the worse and people talk about a candidate who 'bridges' the divide by having conservative social politics but Bloomberg is the reverse. Most conservatives like him because of his fiscal outlook and most liberals like him because of his social politics. He's not really in your face about it either, and works very well people. He is always making the rounds to community leaders and he's considered very 'pro-development' while for the most part not pissing off the locals (except for maybein Coney Island).


Floydboy, he wanted the stadium to stay in Manhattan. I guess he thought the return on investment would be worth it. I honestly remember this stadium talk from nearly five years ago and never paid attention. Mostly because I don't watch sports and have never visitted a stadium. I think the project is proposed for 34th st. east side (or, that's where it was then). At the time there was a whole neighborhood development attachment. A public sculpture garden, public parks, etc. I know thats what he has tried to do with the BAM arts district redevelopment in Brooklyn. He pretty much allowed a major developer to come in and build seven luxury condo highrises and so forth, and the neighborhood was mad about displacement. So he is helping BPL fund a huge fine and performing arts library there and an entire park and walk with galleries and non-profit art spaces. So, he at least tries to meet halfway.

Plus, we're finally getting an additional train line built for the first time in ages!

No no no. It's not hate. It's just that New Yorkers come across to the rest of us as viewing the country like this:

Hmm, well I suppose that the brunt of the new stadium deal doesn't totally lie on Bloomberg. But nonetheless, I don't understand the purpose of building a new one except to appease the Yankees. Though the Yankees somewhat threatened to leave in the '80s, I haven't heard a thing since then. The revenue they are receiving through the current stadium is huge and they average a sell-out every game. There's no reason the team would leave. The current stadium structurally sound and it was stated that it would be able to last for decades. Even a complete renovation of the old stadium would have cost 1/8 what the current cost of the new stadium is. And of course the ROI will be worth it for the Yankees and the city, but the taxpayers are going to have to shell out $450 million for the project while only adding $96 million to the city's tax base over 30 years.

And they're building state of the art facilities for the community, but they are building them in locations that are difficult to get to. Some parks would be built on the Harlem River waterfront, which is one mile (1.6 km) away from the current parkland and requires walking under an interstate highway and over railroad tracks to access. Ten acres of the replacement parks would be built on artificial surface atop new parking garages; these parks would be closed to accommodate fans' cars on the 81 home game days, which account for almost half of the days during the six-month baseball season. That and the surface of the park on top of the garages registered 134 degrees. Not too many people will want to walk/play on top of that.

Anyway, the Yankee stadium debacle aside, I did some research on Bloomberg's political stances. Definitely have to agree with his stances on Education and Immigration. Having some of my peers now teaching in schools throughout the country, I seem to hear a resonating, "the system is broken" or the like. That and Season 4 of The Wire.

It would be hard for the Yankees Stadium to remain in Manhattan, considering it is currently located in the Bronx. What you're talking about is the failed proposal for the Jets stadium.

Didn't even notice that. Somehow I just read Manhattan as New York. But yes, Yankee Stadium is on 161st street near the Harlem River.

Is that what it was? All these sports sound the same to me. I just remembered something about some kind of a stadium.


No no no no no. That picture is all wrong. Must be dated.

The places we would see from this coast would be the state of Jersey, and the cities of Boston, Philly, DC, Chicago, Miami, L.A. and San Fran. What? There's a middle of this country outside of Chicago?!?!?!?

You can't seriously believe that can you? If Obama loses I doubt he will run again. the only presidential candidate that could have had cause to run after losing the primary election that I can htink of is Gore and he chose not to. The only way I can see that happening is if Obama wins the popular vote but loses the EVs by a narrow margin. Obama wins the EV and popular vote but doesn't get 270 and McCain is elected by the House. Thats it.

Yeah I know Nixon did that he narrowly lost to JFK and was pushed back in after LBJ announced he wasn't running again. That situation was perputuated by a lack of incumbent running for president which does not happen often in fact until this one the previous election was in fact the one that elected Nixon.

Um, McCain?

Wow, way to miss the point!

Groucho meant that Obama will WIN the election in '08 and will be running for re-election in 2012.

This thread was about if Obama loses would bloomberg run in 2012 its in the OP. Obama does not have a sure shot at winning I hope he does adn teh recent crash is good for his election.

McCain was never a Nominee he ran in the primaries and that si very different.

I misunderstood your statement to mean the primaries. You should say "general election" which is the common way of distinguishing the two.

Aaaaaaaaand there goes the term limit.

Just got back from Philly (had an argument before the Superior Court -- one of the judges came out with a Philly's cap on) so I haven't heard -- the city council allowed him to run again even though the voters twice now have said "term limits"?

Yes. I'm still mixed about this, for many reasons. I wasn't sure where I stood on the issue anyways. Not because of the "If it was someone you didn't like you would never extend the limit," bit, which is true, but because I tend to think of term limits in terms of Presidency (and the president's ability to do things like select life-long judges), which is not the same case for a mayor who is primarily involved in local issues and politics, manuevering federal and city funds, etc.

Still. Didn't think it would happen. Bloomberg is an even huger celebrity than I thought, apparently.

I'd rather if instead of the third term he was put in charge of the 700b bailout. Instead of the 35 year old Goldman Sachs guy they put in charge.

But he's the only mayor of NY in my adult lifetime that I've liked so I'm glad to have him stay around.

Keith Olberman just named Bloomberg and the City Council "Worst Persons in the World" for voting down term limits despite voter preference. "If that's not conflict of interest, I don't know what is!"

I like Bloomberg, but this kind of hubris needs to be defeated. I hope they all lose their seats in a voter revolution.

Yeah, I am TOTALLY against this. Vote him and the others out.

not happy to hear this

Eh? I think everyone is scared to switch up a competent, well-liked, well known for his fiscal plans, mayor during the worst economic downtourn in decades. I don't see any voter revolution happening.

Still, this adds to what is quickly becoming the weirdest election year I can think of...on the federal and local level.