We could use some pragmatic and imaginative leadership in the White House after eight long years of W and his goons and chronies. I think Bloomberg would be a competative third-party candidate because of his personal wealth, business experience, connections with many other mayors via Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and the public's genuine disillusionment with both parties (legitimate or not) and the need for a fresh face. There were rumors of a Hagel/Bloomberg ticket, but if Bloomberg has the White House in his sights, who'd make a good running mate? Preferably someone with foreign policy or military experience to fill those policy vacuums.

is would be emblematic of "politics for sale".

This discussion should not be so much a speculation of "He's done so much for NYC, what could he do for the USA?" but a rallying call for election reform.  Publicly financed elections is intended to keep big money out of politics. 

A Bloomberg candidacy would circumvent any campaign reform accomplished to date because he's using his own money.  He's a media tycoon.  What are the chances of any opponent getting any attention?  A self-financed campaign by Bloomberg would free up a lot of GOP cash for buying back the Congress.

Anyone who believes that Bloomberg may be compatible with some Democratic Party ideals should look back to his actions during the New York Transit strike. 

To me, business experience is not a plus.  Any more than it was for Ross Perot.  Making a pro-business decision that may be interpreted as something a couple of ticks to the left of radical conservatism should not paint him as a liberal Rebublican; it is still pro-business.  All business, all the time is an ideal environment to incubate the next Enron or encourage further consolidation of finance, media, and other areas of commerce that we currently have diminishing choices in.

Mike Bloomberg leaving the Republican Party makes it increasingly likely that he will start a new party and very likely with Arnold Schwarzenegger. In CA today he is saying: ?Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles, and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology.? Likewise, Arnold's key phrase is "post partisanship."

This is a theme awakened in recent political history by Mark Warner as Governor of Virginia. My good Democratic Governor John Lynch in NH picked it up and was recently reelected in this red state with 80% of the vote with it. It was leading to a new Democratic awakening. What happened?

He is running or he is just really toying with some people now.  He's better than half the democratic field and all of the Republican field, wouldn't spend any time fundraising and instead could focus on talking to the American people.

I think he could possibly win it all - saturate the tv and radio airwaves from Jan. 08 to Nov. 08, show how ineffective both parties really are, and be the straight shooter that none of the current candidates isnt?  It's a winning strategy to me. 

Mike Bloomberg is old school from the time when politics formed around New England's ethnic and religious tribes as in the movie "Miller's Crossing." He and his family are highly respected here as authentic and original and trustworthy people. I've felt from the beginning that Mike was acting as a concerned citizen, as it was said that he would only enter if both parties failed to put up worthy candidates. He's one of the smartest men on earth and he's not going to throw away a half million bucks. Interesting that he says that he is no longer a Republican but did not declare himself an "Independent." His staff says he will not declare until February. That is, he is giving the two parties a time to shape up. There is still time (Warner, Webb, Sebelius, Clark). But this is a warning.

I'd like to check all four boxes in the above poll.

1. Bloomberg would pull some votes from both parties.  Not the die hards and loyalists, but from moderates who generally support their party but are willing to look outside the box.  Neither party has a sure thing in their hopefuls so it wouldn't take much to convince the non-loyalists and non-extremists in either party to support Bloomberg.

2. Independents who don't usually vote would would throw massive support (in numbers) behind him because many of these people are disillusioned with the establishment (both parties).

3. However, because many of those Independents who usually don't vote are typically driven not to vote by apathy, skepticism, or cynicism, their actual support in terms of level of effort will be fairly low.  Meaning weak campaign support and weak turn out on election day - so he won't pull enough real votes to make a difference.

I could be wrong on #3 - if something lights a real fire with the Independents and they truly become motivated and involved, Bloomberg could very well be the next President.  If he runs.