Ok I agree Obama might not like the ticket. And it does make sense that he will wait out another 4 years.
However, I disagree with your Paul statement. Nader has said he will endorse Ron Paul if Nader does not think he has a chance of winning. That says something about the cross over power of Paul. Paul will not pull votes from one side but both and the middle. Something that has not been seen in a 3rd party so far. (Paul is polling 27% among indies in New Hampshire)
Say you have a Clinton vs Rudy or Romney (all pro war, all pro policing the world). Paul could have a real chance of getting 20% of the vote or higher.
I am not sure what % is needed to get into the debates. I know they make up the rules as they go so the % will just keep jumping as Paul rises. Fox News tried to make it so 5% was the goal for their debate, Ron Paul reached that, Romney said he would not show up to the debate and it was canceled. That debate was going to happen in Iowa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
Having a billion dollars to fund it is a good reason to think that Bloomberg might run....it is not a good reason to think that Obama would support him or agree to be on the ticket.
"If" Obama doesn't win the nomination, he'll run the table in 4 years no problem. It would be insane for him to agree to be #2 on a ticket and have to support positions handed down from the top of the ticket that he'd have to defend 4 years from now.
He can just bide his time and run again. Although I think he's going to win it all now, seriously.
As for Paul running, he would just be a spoiler and he wouldn't poll high enough to get into the debates or anything...so it would be basically like the right wing version of Ralph Nader.
|