Less than 24 hours after making public his decision to leave the Republican party, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg held a press conference ostensibly to tout the 50 millionth call made to the city's "311" customer service line.  Hordes of reporters gathered in hopes of catching a clue regarding a possible Bloomberg presidential run. The mayor loved every minute of it (view highlights below).  After initially shooting down questions relating to his political plans -- "we are trying to do things on topic and that's what we are focusing on," Bloomberg said at one point -- the mayor grew more and more willing to expound on his own future as well as the state of American politics.  "I have said that my intention is to be mayor for the next 925 days and that is my intention," Bloomberg said. "I have the greatest job in the world and I am going to keep doing it."  As always in politics, words matter. Intending to remain in your current job is not the same as pledging a binding oath to do so. And for a politician as savvy as Bloomberg, trust us, he knows the difference.  For those ready to see a presidential candidate in Bloomberg, they got fodder during the press conference.  "I do think the more people who run for office the better," said Bloomberg at one point.  "The big issues of the time keep getting pushed to the back," Bloomberg said at another moment, leading into a riff on the "Beltway" -- always a convenient punching bag for candidates looking to burnish their outsider credentials.  All in all, a good day for Bloomberg. He presented himself as a detail-oriented workaholic focused on doing his day job while giving out just enough quotes that, if parsed in a certain way, could be seen as a wink and a nod about his presidential ambitions.  And, we would be remiss for not giving a big pat on the back to the press crops for their creative (and at times hilarious) attempts to use the "311" issue to get Bloomberg talking about his presidential plans. Our favorite? "Mr. Mayor, how do you plan on instituting '311' on a national basis?"  VIDEO | Highlights of Bloomberg Press Conference  By Chris Cillizza | June 20, 2007; 2:22 PM ET | Category: Eye on 2008 Previous: Parsing the Polls: Do National Surveys Matter? | Next: Wyoming Senate: And Then There Were Three  Add The Fix to Your Site  mfaozw ojrv qnjogvrb rneytagw arexw lbeyfxpus ditaw [URL]http://www.pgqazso.qdzepc.com[/URL] bljy qjzbgixe  Posted by: balnhtirf lpmfxkie | July 8, 2007 9:11 AM  mfaozw ojrv qnjogvrb rneytagw arexw lbeyfxpus ditaw [URL]http://www.pgqazso.qdzepc.com[/URL] bljy qjzbgixe  Posted by: balnhtirf lpmfxkie | July 8, 2007 9:06 AM  rutlkne xmfc zulegmjy vjkuyaiqo bvdr uejxmbpnq xyazf [URL=http://www.fkrnpigj.jgrponkvt.com]wevkit auimh[/URL]  Posted by: qthoaeu nhvimscp | July 8, 2007 9:04 AM  rutlkne xmfc zulegmjy vjkuyaiqo bvdr uejxmbpnq xyazf [URL=http://www.fkrnpigj.jgrponkvt.com]wevkit auimh[/URL]  Posted by: qthoaeu nhvimscp | July 8, 2007 9:02 AM  ezygc xwin kenxiorp tfci shgtbd gbuzwapdj kbila eybztgsr xfbhrm  Posted by: psbj calzft | July 8, 2007 9:01 AM  ezygc xwin kenxiorp tfci shgtbd gbuzwapdj kbila eybztgsr xfbhrm  Posted by: psbj calzft | July 8, 2007 9:00 AM  ezygc xwin kenxiorp tfci shgtbd gbuzwapdj kbila eybztgsr xfbhrm  Posted by: psbj calzft | July 8, 2007 8:58 AM  Posted by: ohcrtys igwvqkfhm | July 8, 2007 8:57 AM  Posted by: ohcrtys igwvqkfhm | July 8, 2007 8:56 AM  Posted by: ohcrtys igwvqkfhm | July 8, 2007 8:55 AM  fnsjetph itjobd ljounypbt gyseazr gwxmksr dcfi ezmn  Posted by: cvgnyo vfmrexjiz | July 8, 2007 8:53 AM  Bokonon, Your articles do not refer to this position change as a flip-flop. What they actually do talk about is the left's reaction to her movement on the position and how they are dissatisified that she has not renounced her vote like Edwards. My point is that when Romney has movement on issues, it is characterized as a flip, when Clinton (or some other democrat) does it, it's just an evolving position.  Posted by: Dave! | June 22, 2007 8:17 PM  The walks like a duck thing applies here... HRC's various positions (from CODE PINK - not FOX!).  March 2003: "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. ... I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way part of this decision."  February 2005: Hillary makes the somewhat dubious statements that much of Iraq is functioning well, that elections there have succeeded and that the insurgency is failing. Hillary says the US should not set a deadline for troop withdrawal because it will "play into the hands of the insurgents."  May 2007: Hillary Clinton signs on as a co-sponsor of a bill that would revoke the 2002 War Authorization she voted for.  May 2007:. Hillary Clinton votes YES on a procedural motion to end debate on legislation sponsored by Senator Feingold calling for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The motion is defeated, as has been predicted. The media reports that during the day Clinton gives several different answers about whether she will actually support the measure if it comes to a vote. Later in the day she says she will support the legislation.  May 2007: Hillary votes NO on the war appropriations bill that passes the Senate by a vote of 80-14.  Posted by: Dave! | June 22, 2007 8:10 PM  As far as the presidential race, I really doubt that Bloomberg will have a big effect at all if he runs. But outside the 2008 presidential race, it might be interesting to have a $100-millionaire Independent workaholic detail guy hanging around politics in general. If I were Bloomberg and wanted to make a real impact on American politics, I would skip the presidential race and use those $ for something more creative.  Posted by: Golgi | June 21, 2007 9:08 AM  Kurtz nails all this hyperventilating:  "Panting political reporters right now are like crazed suitors, convinced that the girl wants to be ravaged even though she keeps saying no. Why let a little thing like constant denials interfere with our determination to fantasize about the billionaire's prospects?"  Posted by: Judge C. Crater | June 21, 2007 8:27 AM  Clinton's position on the Iraq War hasn't changed enough to warrant calling it a 'complete turnaround'. She has made it clear that she voted to authorize military force under the impression that Bush would first exhaust all diplomatic measures first.  She has supported the war but criticized the execution, much like John McCain. There is a difference, however. Hillary Clinton is now outspokenly critical of the civil war while McCain becomes more supportive.  Of course, being an antiwar progressive, I don't agree with her on Iraq all the time. Still, my point is that the position hasn't changed that much. Like her campaign mentions often, her Iraq votes have been exactly the same as those cast by Barack Obama since he was elected in 2004. And he was opposed to the war from the start (as *his* campaign is wont to repeat).  Posted by: Brendan | June 21, 2007 4:20 AM  JimDinFL. Mike B. is the best choice for a third party, in most of our lives. I have seen the kookie Ross and think about what could have happened if he had not dropped out and kept the nutty stuff to himself. With Mike B., we have a person that has attained a great deal in life and would be attractive to many dems and repubs alike not to mention the Is and Ls. I hope he does not make a run in 08 for I think he would hurt Hillary the most, and it is more than possible the repubs would pull another Liebermann, just to keep Hillary out of The White House.  Posted by: lylepink | June 20, 2007 11:50 PM  and BTW, Romney IS a preening narcissist for whom policy positions are a convenience, rather than an expression of conviction. He IS a flip-flopper, and he counts on folks like you to forgive him because he says the right(-wing) stuff (now) about taxes, JAY-zuss, and Eye-rock. Trust him at your peril.  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 11:48 PM  Posted by: Bokonon | June 20, 2007 11:43 PM  Posted by: Bokonon | June 20, 2007 11:33 PM  Just a random thought. I find it curious that when blogs or articles discuss Romney, his change in positions is invariably mentioned, most of the time using the "F" word (flip-flop). Yet amazingly enough, Hillary's complete turnabout on the war is almost never characterized the same way. From the front page of the Post - "Sen. Hillary Clinton arrives with antiwar positions and receives a favorable reception." In the article - "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) drew only modest boos at a gathering of liberal activists yesterday, a sign of how well her changing position on Iraq is playing in the antiwar wing of her party." I did the search and "flip-flop" was not used in the article. On Romney yesterday- "Such internal philosophical disagreements are especially perilous to Romney, who is fighting charges he himself has flip-flopped over abortion rights, gay rights and embryonic stem cell research, among other topics." Curiouser and curiouser.  Posted by: Dave! | June 20, 2007 11:24 PM  Why I would vote for Bloomberg: He doesn't just live with the chaos manipulated by special interests, he attacks it and MUCH more effectively than most, which is saying a lot, and this may be our greatest need in government.  He isn't just one of the privileged who throw up their hands, excusing the benefit they receive from a skewed playing field---an America with chaos and the fog of cancelling opinions keeping things in place that really hurt the majority of people and, lest we forget, cause untold suffering and injustice.  I accept a man whose financial backer may be himself but who truly relates to and feels compassion for his fellow humans (and acts on it effectively), unlike the opportunist and demagogue Liberman.  (I hope)if toward campaign end, polls show a 3rd candidacy will re-elect a bad Republican nominee, Bloomberg can yield to the Democrat nominee (taking a position in the cabinet?), having done a lot of good by further focusing and gaining support on solutions to the country's problems.  Every statesmen is needed to do battle on the campaign trail to prevent the subversion by the powerful few of what best for the majority of Americans.  This will always be a competitive world; this is a major side of human nature. Consequently, if the middle class doesn't find a way to revitalize democracy and compete in the national policy area, the haves will simply legislate, etc., ways to have more for themselves at the expense of the have-nots.  The powerful few will compete with each other to increase their wealth, which results, in effect, snookering more from the "under" classes.  And, at the end of the day, the powerful few will feel the "under" classes had not been smart enough or focused enough to prevent the transfer of wealth---hence, in some sense, they "deserved" it. They didn't stand up for themselves in the competitive arena.  So which candidate can put this broken democracy in a better direction?  Edwards, Obama?--they have real populist ideas and feelings to help average people, but what powers will these relatively new, special interests-beholden guys on the block really have to accomplish things as President?  Clinton?--she will come as a team with her husband and she is impressive in her own right--she was effective as the New York senator. Though the very issue-knowlegable Bill Clinton proved wrong on some issues that grievously hurt the middle class, you have to say, he generally accomplished or retained "good things" in America, and despite a very long, withering period of political attacks on him, most notoriously because he had been getting sexual release with some of the women around him, with the possibility or probability that Hillary would eventually find out to her great betrayal and distress.  Despite their sexual and other problems, the Clintons are worthy candidates, bringing the above assets. Most Americans will separate out the sexual indiscretions Bill gave into over fidelity to Hillary.  Bloomberg is greatly knowlegable, experienced, and critically-minded like the Clintons, and, also, like them, does not just give lip-service to wanting to help average Americans.  What he has more than the Clintons, through no fault of the Clintons, is a huge independence to special interest money. Of course, as President, when he tries to get things done, the problem will be there : powerful vested interests will fight him for the outcomes they want.  Another boost to his candidacy is that the Republicans and Democrats have been simply taking turns over the years in governing, policies, and law-making that, in effect, result in the abuse of average people.  The present Republican reign has been particularly bad, and might be unkindly (and excessively, but not by much)described as a period of rape and pillage.  Bloomfield 3rd party candidacy points to the false angel-devil perspectives and posturings between our two parties and how a lot of things that need to change (e.g., health care, illegal immigration, taxation, etc., etc.) don't get changed, and a lot a things that are bad changes favoring special interests are accomplished.  Bloomfield would be, in part, elected to break the hypocrisy and unfathfulness of the two major parties and this would give Bloomberg additional momentum and us another reason to vote for him.  Posted by: bobolink | June 20, 2007 11:07 PM  To all those who think that Bloomberg is the new Nader:  Nader stole votes from Al Gore's left flank. Really, his far left flank.  Bloomberg is a moderate. An only slightly less crazy Ross Perot. If the GOP nominates a moderate candidate, the Democratic Party is guaranteed victory with a base that will be united behind their nominee, while Bloomberg and the GOP kill each other over the center, and the Republican base stays home.  Posted by: JamesCH | June 20, 2007 10:47 PM  All of these comments about don't vote for Bloomberg because the republicans will win is exactly why they will win. If people don't start voting based on who they think should win instead of choosing the lesser of 2 evils, we could send Washington a message. Since Ron Paul might not win the GOP nomination, it's time to put someone in the White House that can make a change. Demo-publicans and Republicrats are all just the same anyway when it comes to domestic issues.  Think of it this way, if you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils, which do you choose? cyanide or arsenic.  Posted by: patriot | June 20, 2007 10:39 PM  I'd take pleasure in the "little Nazi from NY" winning. It would be loads of fun watching all America going through nicotine withdrawal. Jacking up the taxes would be a hoot too!  Posted by: Brendan Burke | June 20, 2007 10:33 PM  I think there are major differences between Bloomberg and Perot - even if they are both short billionaires associated with an independent run for the White House. Bloomberg is in his second term as mayor of NYC. He is extremely popular in the city by all accounts. This speaks to some political skill. Perot never served in public office and is somewhat eccentric to say the least. He was leading in the polls in 1992 before withdrawing temporarily from the race while accusing George H W Bush of sending Republican operatives to disrupt his daughter's wedding. He was also obsessed with the notion that POWs remained alive in North Vietanmese prisons despite being granted access to intelligence reports that strongly refuted that notion. Furthermore, Perot was a comedian's dream, especially the impressionists. Despite all that, he captured 19% of the popular vote. Given the widespread disgust with the posionous partisanship in Washington and Bloomberg's record of success in business and politics, it could be a very interesting election.  Posted by: JimD in FL | June 20, 2007 9:15 PM  F&B: When you post go back and scroll to the end and you can see if your post is there. Sometimes we forget to hit the post after we preview what we have written.  Posted by: lylepink | June 20, 2007 9:05 PM  I posted a comment here today on this thread and it was never posted. Does my opinion not count? This is why I stopped posting here.  Posted by: F&B | June 20, 2007 8:49 PM  fps: The thing you are missing is the profit motive. To eliminate hunger worldwide would be fairly easy to accomplish, and yet the folks that control the money is the main reason it is not done. Take a look at the faith based folks and you will have a good idea of what and who I am talking about.  Posted by: lylepink | June 20, 2007 7:32 PM  The support of Democratic candidates and leaders should deter Republicans from their party! Anyone running for the Rep ticket is going to fail bc they can't turn away from Bush. From health care to education and poverty, these issues take precedence over an ever-inflating military budget, and only the Dems are taking notice.  The Borgen Project states that just $19 billion annually can end starvation and $23 billon annually can reverse the spread of Malaria and AIDS. With these issues being so easily addressed, it is no wonder that a war-touting Republican side isn't doing well in the polls or with the American people.  Posted by: fps | June 20, 2007 6:28 PM  'back to the Carter years. Ohhh the malaise. Way to go Dirty Harry!'  i see zouk is back. why don't you sign your worthless posts anymore, zouk, ignrant coward?  and proud, you sound like his echo chamber. you people are all zombies -- you lisen to talk radio and parrot everything they say. it's like you share one small brain...  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 6:09 PM  What are the holes in IRV as you see them? I've not seen it spelled out, though perhaps your Condorcet link attempts to discern some. I'll have to check that out, as it's completely new to me. Thanks for the reference.  While you listed some of the countries using IRV, my point was that most modern countries these days use some form of *runoff* voting, which allows people to specify more than just their "least worst" candidate and then go home with a bad taste in their mouths. IRV is just an automated version of runoff voting, so you get it all done in one day (and one trip to the polls). We are actually fairly peculiar among developed countries in perpetuating this outdated two-party cartel system. It's the least democratic of traditions I can imagine frankly.  And, your vote does not get "transferred to another candidate" unless you specify one. If you can't see the benefit in, for example based on your likely political preferences, specifying "(1) Libertarian Looney version 2008 and (2) Chosen corporate stooge of the GOP", then I'm afraid I can't explain it to you any more clearly. It's about having your will expressed more accurately in your vote. There's nothing coercive about it. Sometimes I think you people are so congenitally predisposed to paranoia that any progress is going to strip you of some liberties. Might think about seeing someone about that.  "While IRV is designed to ensure that each individual candidate elected is supported by a majority of those in his or her constituency, it does not ensure this result on a national level."  How so? How is the national level (really, on the level of your state's Electoral Votes, since that's all your vote goes toward) any different than more local ones?  Posted by: B2O | June 20, 2007 6:06 PM  Bloomberg is a great way to insure that the next president of the United States is Fred Thompson.  Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | June 20, 2007 6:02 PM  I can't wait for the two different menus to arrive in american restaurants, just like they have in Europe - English and French.  Except in America we will have the subsidized-government menu that your health care provider pays most of and the regular menu that you pay cash for. Just think, you can go out to a healthy government meal of carrots, granola and celery for just your $10 co-pay. Never mind that this only costs 8 bucks now.  some of the more foolish and wealthy out there may opt for the out-of-plan meal of steak and potatoes which can run well over 50 bucks.  Posted by: nanny nanny boo boo | June 20, 2007 5:52 PM  Return of the Clinton News Network Rick Kaplan may be gone as its boss, but the ties between CNN and the Clinton Political Family have returned, thanks to major Clinton benefactor Vinod Gupta, who recently purchased the polling firm Opinion Research Corporation, soon after it landed the contract to do polling for CNN. Gupta founded and controls InfoUSA, which has also paid millions in conulting fees to Bill Clinton.  Posted by: Now I see why the polls are that way | June 20, 2007 5:43 PM  N Korea promised him not to cheat. And the CCCP would not leave afghanistan, despite being asked nicely. What is this world coming to? Next thing you know, the jihadists will attack us even if we agree to surrender.  J carter is most certainly the biggest boob around these days.  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 5:41 PM  Posted by: chrisfl | June 20, 2007 5:40 PM  The Clinton Political Family Thomas Lifson I was astounded when I first saw the Hillary Clinton YouTube spoof of the last episode of The Sopranos. Apart from the question of likening her family to mobsters, I didn't think the picture painted of Hillary was terribly appealing.  Although turned-out quickly, some real care went into producing this, like hiring Vincent Curatola (or a look-alike?), who played Johnny Sack on The Sopranos, to be the guy sitting at the counter eyeing the Clintons.  Obviously, pros were in charge. So why did they open with a shot of Hillary entering the dark diner framed by bright sunlight? Her profile is highlighted in a most unflattering way (on this YouTube link, look at the eighth second of this link to see what I mean). Her black outfit emphasizes the bulge of her hips, clearly defined against the bright light of the doorway. But the rest of the diner is rather dark, so the eye naturally is drawn to the bright rectangle in the center of the frame, and the contrast between the outline of her figure, which rather resembles the shape of a bowling pin, and the bright sunlit background.  It is almost as if someone set out to make the candidate look bottom-heavy in voters' minds.  Then there is the "eat your carrots" moment. While the satire on the onion ring ordering in the original is clear, there is also a pronounced overtone of the Nanny State in it. Do we really want a president telling us what we can eat, like poor Bill with his heart surgery?  So why did the ad-makers take the approach that they did?  I think the ad was produced to cheer up Hillary's supporters, whose enthusiasm is necessary to take the campaign forward, and who may be wavering in the face of Barack Obama, and now Mike Bloomberg as alternatives. The humor of the ad is intended to melt the divide that might have been growing between candidate and supporters.  She isn't afraid to look bad. In fact, she is taking advice to be less phony, and allowing herself to appear less than glamorous. See, voters? I am just like you, struggling with weight issues.  Hillary probably saw likening herself to a mob family wife as in-your-face mockery of her critics who have alleged ties to mobsters or criminality in her past. She also probably saw that Carmella Soprano, as cheated-upon wife, was a rather sympathetic figure. My guess is that she was told this by staff people who thought up the ad. I suspect she does not watch much TV.  As for the carrots, Hillary and her partisans absolutely do think it is a good idea for the government to be directing you to eat foods that are healthy and avoid those which are not. They don't care what people like me think about freedom of choice. To them, the carrot ordering was a delightful joke.  What an interesting piece of propaganda! I suspect that among Hillary's fans it is regarded as a masterstroke, while most conservatives are appalled.  Posted by: thomas | June 20, 2007 5:38 PM  Why, oh why, must we hear the constant whine of Jimmy Carter sniveling about his beloved terrorist groups? "Just give Hamas a chance" he cries.  Hamas, which has called for the destruction of Israel and has long been considered a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department, and refuses to renounce violence or accept Israel's right to exist.  But Carter insists "They told me they want to have a peaceful administration,...a unity government"! They told him, so it must be true!  Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 20, 2007 5:34 PM  I think that Bloomberg stands a much better chance at winning than Ross Perot....here's why:  1) He's not as kooky. If Ross Perot can get 20%, think of what a comparatively sane candidate could get. In most states, you just need a plurality to win the electoral votes.  2) He has political/governing experience. He wouldn't be as gaffe-prone. He knows the system. AND he's proven himself to be effective.  3) He would have MUCH more $$ than Perot.  4) Don't underestimate the power of the internet for organizing. I think that would easily allow him to counter the more old-school organizations of the major parties.  Posted by: MBW | June 20, 2007 5:32 PM  Happy Birthday to WV on your 124th. Bloomburg could make a lot of difference, mainly taking votes from Hillary and could lead to a GOP win, when they otherwise have little to no chance.  Posted by: lylepink | June 20, 2007 5:27 PM  I think that Bloomberg would hurt Dems and Republicans roughly equally.  I think Bloomberg would peel off the secular/fiscal conservatives from the Republicans...and would peel off disaffected Democrats.  While I think Bloomberg's social views would appeal more to Democrats, many Democrats are still too angry at Ralph Nader to make a vote for an indie candidate. Meanwhile, the Republicans as a party are less satisfied with their candidates than the Democrats are.  And, if Bloomberg picks a conservative running mate, I think the net draw from both parties would be a wash.  Posted by: MBW | June 20, 2007 5:26 PM  19% - that must be the total of all the zoning inspectors who were bribed plus his lobbyist sons paid to lobby - take a guess - their dad. thanks dad, we couldn't have done it without you.  Posted by: dirty Harry | June 20, 2007 5:23 PM  "Sailing like a bird high on the wings of love Take me higher than all the stars above I'm burning, yearning Gently turning round and round I'm always rising up I never Want to come back down"  Sounds like... yes it is! the Hillary campaign song!  Plese excuse me while I go hurl.  Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 20, 2007 5:23 PM  As the Gaza Strip flamed into Hamas gang warfare and the West Bank slid into another civil war, Carter -- cozy in distant Ireland accepting another "human rights" award -- found cause Tuesday to blame America first for all the violence.  Amid wine, cheese and good feeling, America's worst ex-president drew a bead on the West. The refusal by the U.S., Israel and the EU to support Hamas, an armed terror group that just launched a coup d'etat and civil war in full view of the world, was nothing but a "criminal" act at the root of the trouble there, Carter asserted.  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 5:20 PM  Harry Reid now tied with last place with Scooter Libby for the lowest favorable rating among American voters at 19%.  Vice President Dick Cheney's numbers held steady at 38% favorable. Bummer for Dirty harry... That means if you doubled Reid's marks they would just equal Cheney's approval rating.  Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 20, 2007 5:16 PM  Anyone who wonders why Congress has a job approval rating of 23 percent, seven points lower than even Bush's, need only look at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) failure to change the ethics of the Congress. Having pledged to make Congress full-time and put the lackadaisical members to work, she then announced a schedule for 2007 in which House members will have 20 weeks off (and when they work, it's Tuesday to Thursday most of the time).  Posted by: Dick | June 20, 2007 5:16 PM  Sailing like a bird high on the wings of love Take me higher than all the stars above I'm burning, yearning Gently turning round and round I'm always rising up I never Want to come back down  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 5:11 PM  what we need is a way to make it so that no matter who anyone votes for, the Dem candidate wins. this has been tested succesfully in several jurisdictions and found to be working.  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 5:10 PM  B20 says IRV is " of course widely used outside the US for years now."  Of course. If you define "widely" as Australia for elections to the Federal House of Representatives, the Legislative Council of Tasmania, the Fijian House of Representatives, to elect the President of Ireland, and for municipal elections in New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea.  Personally, I do not wish my vote to be transferred to another candidate in the general election for President. While this system may work well in some smaller municipalities and countries, it is more complex, both in terms of casting votes and counting them.  While IRV is designed to ensure that each individual candidate elected is supported by a majority of those in his or her constituency, it does not ensure this result on a national level.  Doesn't sound like progress to me.  Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 20, 2007 5:05 PM  You either end up dead, in witness protection or in jail. Yes, Hillary you will.  I certainly hope you don't get whacked even though all of your supporters are.  Can you testify against yourself or your spouse and still qualify for witness protection?  Posted by: Tony S | June 20, 2007 5:02 PM  shut up and eat your carrots. We decide what's good for you.  Posted by: Hillary | June 20, 2007 4:57 PM  Any method that will thwart the will of the people is good for Dems. they have no other strategy for victory. since you like surrendering and losing so much, why fight it?  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 4:55 PM  It is unusual for congressional job approval ratings to be at or below 24%. Congress has been rated this negatively only a few times in the four decades Gallup has measured this item -- in 1979, during the energy crisis;  back to the Carter years. Ohhh the malaise. Way to go Dirty Harry!  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 4:52 PM  The honeymoon phase is over for the new Congress, as the public's ratings of Congress are down again this month. The latest congressional job approval rating (24%) is the lowest for the institution since Democrats took control of both houses in January, and is far below the 37% registered in February. The decline has been most evident among Democrats, whose ratings of Congress now match those of Republicans. Congressional job approval ratings are typically not positive, but ratings as low as the current one are uncommon. The poll also finds that only about one in four Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in this country, little changed since last month but still at its lowest point in over a decade."  the more the Dems air thier views, the more they are disliked. see - the system works. Kiss 2008 goodbye thanks to the most worthless leaders ever in congress.  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 4:51 PM  IRV voting would be a huge improvement over what we have now, but it's still vulnerable to some strategic voting. The Condorcet method is less vulnerable. In Condorcet voting, the voter picks a winner out of each possible pair of candidates. That ensures that the winner is actually the favorite candidate of the most people. Wikipedia has a good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method  IRV is a lot easier to understand, which means it's probably easier to sell to the voters. But in a perfect world, I'd prefer our elections used the Condorcet method.  Posted by: Blarg | June 20, 2007 4:48 PM  For people worried about Bloomberg as a possible "spoiler" for either the Dems or Reps in 2008, this is a timely opportunity to get familiar with the superior voting system being increasingly used at the local levels in the US, and of course widely used outside the US for years now. It's called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).  Basically instead of simply voting for your favorite (or, more often these days, "least despised among the choices") candidate, you get to rank as many choices as you like. Candidates are progressively eliminated based on the fewest first-choice votes, with those ballots being shifted to those voters' second choices, and so on. You only have to go to the polls once, the counting system does the "runoff voting" automatically then.  If we had had this modern voting sytem in place in 2000 instead of our primitive all-or-nothing one, the American People's preference for president would have been honored. Exit polling shows that Nader voters preferred Gore as a second choice by about a 2-to-1 margin. Their second choice votes would have gone to Gore, and we would have been spared the debacle known as the Bush presidency.  It's called democracy people. Let's actually do it, eh? Google it or go to  Posted by: B2O | June 20, 2007 4:39 PM  Hmmmm, a 5'7" billionaire, independent candidate, deciding to make President his first run for national office.  Sure, sounds great, we haven't seen that movie before.  Posted by: JD | June 20, 2007 4:37 PM  Why didn't Bloomberg run for New York governor or senator in 2006? Just because he would have lost to a popular Democrat?  Posted by: Blarg | June 20, 2007 4:24 PM  perhaps it is not a relevant discussion, but while it is fair to call bloomberg a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, i do not think that it is accurate to call him a libertarian. even while that is sometimes a textbook definition of libertarianism, bear in mind that bloomberg has banned smoking and trans fats in new york city; these actions don't really make him any less of a fiscal conservative or social liberal, but they do make him less of a libertarian because he is supporting government action on behalf of a city's health and to an extent regulating personal behavior.  libertarianism is an ideology, and for bloomberg to join the libertarian party would be for him to espouse something that he says is part of the problem.  Posted by: peter | June 20, 2007 4:14 PM  From what I've read of his background, he's already better than anyone running, democrat or republican.  Posted by: rp | June 20, 2007 4:05 PM  'And if Bloomberg ran, a Republican would probably win'  ..doubt it, think he'll siphon off far more cons than dems...  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 3:48 PM  What kind of democracy gives us only TWO choices?!? Since when do we have to be confined to red or blue, conservative or liberal. With the turn of time and the evolution of politics, we should demand a choice that does not conforms us to preset ideological parties. We should choose an independent. We should choose based on the issues, not on personality or what party a person belongs to. I fully believe in an independent candidate and the promise he holds for the future. We should NOT be bound by obligation to red or blue, nor should we vote just because we dont want the other party to win. We should ALL demand an independent candidate that represents the heart of America, and brings moderation and balance into the ideological scale.  Posted by: Yalie | June 20, 2007 3:40 PM  What kind of democracy gives us only TWO choices?!? Since when do we have to be confined to red or blue, conservative or liberal. With the turn of time and the evolution of politics, we should demand a choice that does not conforms us to preset ideological parties. We should choose an independent. We should choose based on the issues, not on personality or what party a person belongs to. I fully believe in an independent candidate and the promise he holds for the future. We should NOT be bound by obligation to red or blue, nor should we vote just because we dont want the other party to win. We should ALL demand an independent candidate that represents the heart of America, and brings moderation and balance into the ideological scale.  Posted by: Yalie | June 20, 2007 3:40 PM  wow a pro Israel war hawk who's for open borders, just the kind of third party candidate American's are screaming for.  Posted by: me | June 20, 2007 3:34 PM  Look, both the Dems and the Repubs are inept, corrupt, and catering to big business rather than me or my family.  Give me a self-made man that isn't going to sell-out to lobbyists just so he can retire comfortably.  Mr. Bloomberg, you have my vote. In fact, you have my volunteer time AND my vote. If for no other reason that to send a mesage to Dems and Repubs that I am sick and tired of them both.  Posted by: Tony | June 20, 2007 3:20 PM  I would vote for him too but I am worried that it could help the evil republicans and their win at any cost attitude.  Rudy scares me big time!  Posted by: 2112 | June 20, 2007 3:20 PM  Whatever it takes to get in the swim!!!!  Posted by: Jill | June 20, 2007 3:12 PM  Going the same road as Leiberman...anything to get elected/ campaign/ get noticed/be a big shot, no matter what!!!!  Posted by: Jill | June 20, 2007 3:11 PM  Going the same road as Leiberman...anything to get elected/ campaign/ get noticed/be a big shot, no matter what!!!!  Posted by: Jill | June 20, 2007 3:11 PM  Going the same road as Leiberman...anything to get elected/ campaign/ get noticed/be a big shot, no matter what!!!!  Posted by: Jill | June 20, 2007 3:11 PM  Going the same road as Leiberman...anything to get elected/ campaign/ get noticed/be a big shot, no matter what!!!!  Posted by: Dem | June 20, 2007 3:09 PM  Going the same road as Leiberman...anything to get elected/ campaign/ get noticed/be a big shot, no matter what!!!!  Posted by: Dem | June 20, 2007 3:09 PM  Social Liberal + Fiscal Conservative ----------------------- = Libertarian  Mike, Please re-register as a Libertarian and give the Libertarian Party a viable and worthy candidate to run against both the Democrats and Republicans who want to interfere in our personal lives (social issues) while eroding our liberties - all while expanding government's reach and increasing the debt.  "The government that governs least, governs best." (Thomas Jefferson)  "Those who would give Liberty for Temporary Security deserve neither Liberty nor Security" (Benjamin Franklin.  Posted by: skytalker | June 20, 2007 3:09 PM  A videotape shows New York Sen. Hillary Clinton committing felonies and should be admitted as new evidence in a California civil case, a forthcoming legal brief to be filed by Friday argues.  so corrupt, even the liberal press can't hide it.  Posted by: reverse gear | June 20, 2007 3:02 PM  Posted by: Libertarian? | June 20, 2007 02:57 PM  That describes every Democrat running for office!  That's why a vote for Bloomberg is a vote against the Republican nominee, but not against the Democratic nominee.  Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | June 20, 2007 3:02 PM  For those who may not believe in the prospects for a Bloomberg bid for the presidency, two competing thoughts to keep in mind:  1. Bloomberg cannot run for mayor in 2008.  2. Type "bloomberg08.com" into your browser to be redirected to his homepage.  He is clearly keeping his options wide-open.  Posted by: CM in Raleigh | June 20, 2007 2:59 PM  By doing what Ron Paul should have done months ago, Bloomberg just sucked all the air right out of the Republicans.  Now they won't have anything left to scream with after they follow their Lemming in Chief off the cliff.  Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | June 20, 2007 2:58 PM  Senators Offer Bill To Boost Plug-In Vehicle Technology  Senate Finance Committee members Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) have introduced a bill to help develop commercially viable plug-in hybrids and other electric-drive vehicles, which would shift the nation from its dependence on liquid fuels and toward much cleaner - and cheaper - electricity for transportation.  Posted by: | June 20, 2007 2:57 PM  Posted by: Libertarian? | June 20, 2007 2:57 PM  Posted by: Informit | June 20, 2007 2:41 PM  Anybody not from DC elected as Potus might be able to focus on what Americans really care about.  Posted by: yankee | June 20, 2007 2:40 PM  As I read in the "Bloomberg: Registered Independent" article, it is unclear whether a Bloomberg candidacy would be a spoiler for the Democrats or for the Republicans. I, for one, think that if he ran, he would pull votes from Democrats, and as such, I do not want him to run.  Because he would not have to face a primary, he would be able to expound his socially liberal views and fiscal responsibility without consequence from the "base"  Regardless of how rich he is, I don't think a third party candidate can win. And if Bloomberg ran, a Republican would probably win. And we certainly don't want any of the current GOP field in the White House. The 2008 Election is too important for that.  Posted by: Brendan | June 20, 2007 2:40 PM  I hope Bloomber continues to torture the press.  Posted by: chris | June 20, 2007 2:36 PM  The comments to this entry are closed.
Chris Cillizza joins washingtonpost.com as the author of a new politics blog called The Fix. Cillizza will provide daily posts on a range of political topics, from the race for control of Congress in 2006 to scrutinizing the 2008 presidential contenders.