The public's unease about the deficit and fears of professional politicians allowed the independent candidacy of billionaire Texan Ross Perot to explode on the scene in the most dramatic fashion--at one point Perot was the leader in the polls. Perot crusaded against the national debt, tapping vague fears of deficits that has been part of American political rhetoric since the 1790s. His volunteers succeeded in collecting enough signatures to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).[5] Perot severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering. He compounded this damage by eventually claiming, without evidence, that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding. His presence, however, ensured that economic issues remained at the center of the national debate.

we're entering dangerous territory - many people who, in 2004 and 2006 voted D, may not this time. they may stay home or vote third party.

especially if there is an attack on iran and congress only acted to facilitate it (see h.con.r.21)

lecturing the fence sitters or yelling at them is not likely to help.

I think Bloomberg would be a lousy president, but he's not a doofus.

Also, the question from the poll seems poorly chosen.  We have a third party, and a fourth, and a fifth, on up to some number I haven't bothered to count.  Were the poll respondents saying that a third party we already have is serving some needed purpose, or that we need a new or newly legitimized third party?

His run may have put Clinton in the White House and denied Bush reelction.

Does Bloomberg have a chance? I don't think so. But, what the 53% of the people are saying is that they are open to the thought of someone, anyone, running a coherent 3rd party challenge. And that's the point the columnists are making. It's enough to tilt the election one way or the other.

But we have different parties because people differ, in goals and sensibilities. We have separation of powers because the Founders thought tension and conflict between the political branches would be inevitable, even healthy.

The two major parties are sensitive market mechanisms: What makes Bloomberg think they are failing to supply something the public strongly demands? Where the parties are failing to "get things done," it is because people disagree about what ought to be done. It is said, with exquisite vacuousness, that Bloomberg represents "post-partisanship." If so--if he is not a partisan of any large, controversial causes--why is he needed?

The door opens, he steps out with a smile. He then looks around in fear, and runs back into the cage and locks himself in.

He is not Perot in that he has name recognition, so the comparison is not great. BZloomberg can increase his name recognition for his media empire by running and losing.