Perot, who was clearly kinda crazy, got almost 20% of the popular vote. 33% is all it takes to split the two big parties, so I'd give Bloomberg a better chance, especially against the likes of the candidates we have now.

Ain't it just like Big Media to call Bloomberg the "most dangerous Billionaire since Ross Perot", and dismiss his campaign before it starts. Bought and paid for by the RNC/DNC, I tell ya.

Mike Bloomberg and either Sam Nunn or Chuck Hagel will be a tough team for any of the current candidates to beat. Americans are looking for a fresh face, but someone who's been around the track a few times (unlike Barry Obama). We also need a team with credible defense experience (thus, Nunn or Hagel). I hope Bloomberg runs. The two major parties need to be shaken to their cores. A strong, viable independent candidate is what America needs.

I saw the interview and there is
No doubt about what Bloomberg said,
He Is Not Running!
There was no qualification, it was a
Straight Emphatic No!
I know this is the Clinton's fall back plan, divide the vote and get in with less than 50% of the vote(just like Bill)! Hopefully the electorate is a little smarter this time!
If Obama wins the nomination all of this talk about a third party candidate will disappear!
The Clintons and their operatives in the MSM have already started this B.S. about the voters being dissatisfied with both parties!
The problem is Bloomberg would have no chance of winning and would only be a spoiler! If he miraculously won, Bloomberg would have no allies in Congress as the Dems and Repubs are in control! The Government would be gridlocked for 4 years!

Perot may have received 18.9% of the popular vote, but received 0 electoral votes. Nonetheless, he was enough to tip the election to Bill Clinton which was likely his plan all along.

Bloomberg told Secrest in no uncertain terms he is not running. The man don't lie to the public and then runs as an honest canditate. Why can't americans accept the truth. I guess they been lied to so much , they can't believe the truth when they see it. Besides it always fills in space for the news media.

A two-party-bickering-gridlocked system is far superior over the one-party debacle hosted by neo-conistic evangelical Republicanism during the first six years of the Cheney/Bush administration, which produced a phony war, a debit ridden disaster, declining healthcare and an illegal border crossing open bridge to America for terrorists galore. The American voter began the breakup of the one-party rule by voting out conservative Republicans in 2006. Disband more monarchy by voting out another round of conservative Republicans ... from the top on down ... in 2008.

Even the idea of a Bloomberg for president just shows how out of step the NY media is with the rest of the country. There is not a chance that another NY liberal would have a prayer of a chance getting elected, yet New Yorkers think he has a chance! That is also why Guilini hasn't a chance when he's out in the hinderlands and away from the NE liberal states. The majority of Americans are conservative in nature and values, and the idea of a NY/Hollywood type candidate with no moral value system to identify with, is repugnant to most Americans.

Bloomberg/Hagel is a winning team. The Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty just doesn't cut it. We need good people in the White House

Bloomberg gets in. Paul gets in. Then with a four party free for all maybe Gingrich gets in. Not sure if Raul Castro will or not. (Just kidding.) But it could be interesting. This two party system is getting old. It is like a one party system almost... the rich get richer... give us something new. How about an a all-American free for all. Heck, if Huck doesn't get the GOP he could start a party as well.

It is just what we need - another flaming Liberal (or two) in the race! Yeah - a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket would be a dream - for whom, I am not sure. Hagel couldn't even get reelected Senator in Nebraska. I am sure that the news media would love to see it happen. What "news" outlet or ad agency wouldn't want to pick up some of the advertising Buck$$ from the Bloomberg billions. The real question is will Bloomberg want to waste a chunk of his personal fortune for a "Ross Perot-like" ego trip? By the way, why would anyone have any kind of a serious conversation with Ryan Secrest?

Bloomberg is nuts... The last person the people of the US will vote for is a blatant nanny state elitist like Bloomberg. Look at what he has done and what he thinks the role of government in our lives should be... he is a dangerous man...

I was watching this denial and was thunderstruck by it. After a two full days of all the networks yammering endlessly about a Bloomberg run, I had to wonder "Didn't anyone think of asking HIM if he was running?" Kudos to Ryan Seacrest for asking a direct question and getting a direct answer. Sure he could change his mind, but this seemed like a pretty solid denial.

I admit most of the candidates are CRAP,
except for Ron Paul. He is the most honest. I use to like Chuck Nagel till I
found out he bought all the voting machines in Nebraska. Real nice huh??? As for Bloomberg, does anyone really think the american people are going to vote for a BILLIONAIRE??? You are really out of touch with the people then. Bloomberg is NEW WORLD ORDER elite who loves globalism and the american people are nothing but serfs to the rich. GO AWAY BLOOMBERG. I agree, he is DANGEROUS.

Makes Brit Hume look pretty dumb. Maybe the Olsen twins can out Senator Craig in their next Disney special.

Maybe you folks have forgotten that Bloomberg is now in the bond insurance business. This means he is making money off of Government debt. Yeah, he is just the conflicting interests' type we need in office. I take that back, conflicting interests' politicos seem to be all we have to choose from, why buck the trend and the inevitable economic entropy that is going to ensue.

Bloomberg cannot run for President. He's only 4 feet 10 inches tall and he can't see over the desk in the Oval Office.

I think there's a law somewhere that you have to be st least 5 feet 6 inches to be president.

To newz4i: What do you base your claim that the majority of Americans are conservative by nature? Just tell that to Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Sorry, but your claim has been right-wing dogma for so long that it has become accepted as true by too many unthinking Americans, even though it is patently false propaganda. Its time for progressives to argue back that the majority of Americans are liberal by nature. You don't agree? Well, how many Americans would give up Social Security for their parents, public education for their children, clean air, child labor laws, inspection of drugs and foods, seat belts (thanks Ralph Nader), and even the right to have an abortion if they so chose? These are all liberal programs. In fact, Americans have been conservative on only one issue -- national defense and securty. However, even here, the Iraq war mess, and the endless war mindset of the Bush adminstration and its neo-con cheerleaders have convinced a majority of Americans that engaging in diplomacy, multi-lateralism and nuance is alot smarter than bellicosity and unilateral endless wars that create more enemies, bankrupt our economy, and cause Americans and people overseas alike to needlessly perish in our wars of aggression. No, you are wrong, dead wrong. The majority of Amercians are moderate/liberals -- we want peace and cooperation. Us liberals just need to stand up and make the argument better and more strongly than we have over the past 30 years and the message will finally get out: we are by nature a progressive/liberal tolerant people who respect civil rights and personal privacy. The conservative era brought in by Reagan is being brought to its just death. Time for conservatives to go back into your 1964 wilderness and minority status.

maybe just maybe the press is concerned that the ad dolars are flowing alittle slow this election cycle to carry thru to the next cycle and are blathering we the people to play their $$ game? Nice try but I'll support a cndidate NOT a wannabe runnerUP..America wants credible intelligent and reasoned to account rather than hyped or legacy entrenched bureaucrats to lead the premier country on Earth to a sustainable rational path of prosperity and NOT populist dogma dirtville!

Obama/Bloomberg? He said he wasn't running for President, but how about VP?

I was toying with the idea that a Bloomberg run might be a good idea, if I didn't see another candidate I liked and as a "unity" ticket. But now that he's said directly and firmly that he won't run, I could not vote for him if he went against his word and ran - if he does now, it will show that he's dishonest and flip-floppy about his deepest intentions and values.