Will Bloomberg make it a three-person race in ’08?

June 20, 2007

For months, something has been driving rumors about NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg running for president as an independent, but to hear Bloomberg tell it, he’s not responsible. On the record, he tells anyone and everyone that he’s not running and he plans to enter philanthropy once term-limits force him from office in 2009.

But signs keep popping up that keep interest brewing. Bloomberg brought his campaign website back online. He’s giving more speeches outside NYC — including one in New Hampshire. A month ago, the Washington Times quoted a “long-time business adviser” to Bloomberg saying that the mayor has set aside money to “go for it.”

And as of yesterday afternoon, Bloomberg ended his affiliation with the Republican Party.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced Tuesday that he was dropping his Republican affiliation, a step that could clear the way for him to make an independent bid for the presidency.

The announcement was released during a campaign-style swing through California, during which Mr. Bloomberg, 65, a billionaire businessman, used increasingly sharp language to criticize both parties in Washington as too timid to take on big problems and too locked into petty squabbling to work together.

“I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead my city,” Mr. Bloomberg’s statement read. “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.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about his future plans? Bloomberg says nothing has changed, but a) the NYT said his top aides are “working intensely behind the scenes promoting the idea of the mayor’s candidacy”; and b) why bother leaving your political party if you’re planning to retire from politics altogether next year?

This, of course, leads to the more politically relevant question: if Bloomberg does run, who benefits?

The conventional wisdom on a Bloomberg campaign, which I’ve largely bought into, is that it would hurt the Democratic nominee. Bloomberg was a life-long Dem until 2001, when he ran as a Republican simply because the Democratic primary field was already crowded. On most issues, he’s clearly in the Democratic mainstream (abortion rights, Iraq policy, global warming, gay rights, education), and on some issues he’s to the left of the Democratic mainstream (gun control, regulation of trans fats).

In other words, in a three-person race, the nation would have two center-left candidates and one conservative. It doesn’t sound like a winning scenario for the Dems.

But a funny thing happened in April when Rasmussen conducted a poll testing this theory, and found that Bloomberg clearly took support away from the GOP candidate, not the Dem. Hmm.

A few other angles to consider:

* Can Bloomberg actually win the presidency? It’s hard to see how he gets 270 electoral votes. It’s been a long while since an independent candidate even earned an electoral vote, better yet seriously competed. Spending the money to get his name on the ballot, however, would be pretty easy.

* Will Giuliani go ballistic? Bloomberg’s predecessor wasn’t talking yesterday, but the NYT noted that “Giuliani is likely to view even this level of flirtation as a serious betrayal: His support for Mr. Bloomberg in 2001, after the attacks of Sept. 11, was critical to Mr. Bloomberg’s success and accounts for why he is where he is today.”

* Subway series? If Hillary Clinton gets the Dem nod, Giuliani gets the GOP nod, and Bloomberg runs an independent, it’ll be the most New York-centric contest imaginable.

Stay tuned.

I worry about a Bloomberg candidacy. The “smart people” vote will be split between Bloomberg and the Democrat (whomever). The “reptile brain” vote — that 28% that still thinks marching to autocracy is the road to victory — is going to the Republican.

And having a “centrist” candidate could draw us away from a true progressive agenda, which we desperately need to move us back to being a more compassionate nation.

  • When the chips are down and the vote’s about to be made, Americans will not vote for blacks, Jews or Mormons. Take a real gut check outside your experience to the majority who claim to go to church and believe the Bible word for word. Sorry, it’s unfortunately the truth.

  • Bloomberg can talk about how dysfunctional the Republicans and Democrats are in Washington all that he wants. But, there’s a simple way to characterize an independent run by Bloomberg in 2008: Remind voters of Nader in 2000 in Florida.

  • Bloomberg has made a lot of statements that he wants Gore to run. He may be preparing the ground for that.

  • Bloomberg splits the Republicans. Rich ones for Bloomberg. Religious ones not. A lot of people would be pleased to see the first Jewish president. Some people might not be so pleased. A girl at UVM told me she puffed down with Bloomberg once. I don’t know much about him but I have a generally favorable impression.

    One thing- on the WB11 (WPIX NY Channel 11) there’s the “Bloomberg Market Watch.” Can they really report fairly on a mayor who sponsers part of their broadcast? Is Mark Green gonna try for mayor again after Bloomberg? How are Green and his brother doing with Air America? It’s still off the air here in liberal Burlington, Vermont.

  • But a funny thing happened in April when Rasmussen conducted a poll testing this theory, and found that Bloomberg clearly took support away from the GOP candidate, not the Dem. Hmm.

    It seems to me that it would depend greatly on who the candidates are. In a two-person race with Giuliani on the Republican ticket, he would get the votes of the people who think “the war on terror” is going well, the people who are personally loyal to Bush, and the people who won’t vote for the Democratic candidate for whatever reason. If Bloomberg steps in, he would get at least some of the votes of the first and third of those, but not make much of a dent in most Democratic candidates. For example. If Edwards is the Democratic candidate and Ron Paul is the Republican candidate (yes, we’re speaking entirely hypothetically here), the reverse might happen.

    Either way, though, it would be entertaining.

  • Mr. Bloomberg, 65, a billionaire businessman

    Sounds like the perfect candidate to lead this country out of the current slow motion coup d’etat of big money interests over the interests of the people. I say either elect him or a good ol’ fashioned Washington, D.C. Lobbyist.

    When 500+ billionaires control half of the wealth on the planet and the major news media sources in the world are monopolized by 6 anational corporations that are controlled by the same billionaire club, you have what I lovingly refer to as a worldwide cabal.

    Sounds like Bloomberg fits right in with that club.

  • Subway series? If Hillary Clinton gets the Dem nod, Giuliani gets the GOP nod, and Bloomberg runs an independent, it’ll be the most New York-centric contest imaginable.

    That would make some southern heads explode.

  • I can think of 1,500,000,000 reasons why he can win. If I need to then I can think of 14,000,000,000 more reasons.

    Any questions?

  • There are enough voters out there to sway the election who

    a.) will be impressed by his wealth to vote for him — money is the outward sign of Election — and who believe that rich men can’t be bought.

    b.) ‘don’t believe in parties’, or that the solution to political problems is to elect-non politicians. (By this argument, if Bloomberg managed the Yankees, they’d be ten games over .500)

    c.) can only wrap their brains around micro-issues like hemp, or trans-fats, because it’s too depressing, or un-cool, to contemplate the big ones. Left-Poujadism, if you will.

    Two of those three groups help the GOP by chasing this ignis fatuus — and it’s the only way the GOP keeps the White House — a perfect storm of irony and stupidity.

  • Bloomberg probably would siphon off some Dem voters, but would probably do more damage to the R’s. Think of how many Republicans are dismayed with their own party but would great difficulty voting for a Democrat. A third, serious option would be a way for them to cast their votes for someone other than a Republican and for someone who is not a Democrat.

    How much of the Democratic core would vote for a billionaire businessman? It wouldn’t seem to me that voters betrayed by two consecutive administrations pandering to the uber-rich would want one of them at the controls. Even if they have Bloomberg’s sense of noblesse oblige.

  • A NY-centric would drive the Civil War/War Between the States is not over croud south of the Mason-Dixon, absolutely bat shit crazy. Sound like fun.

  • The idea that Bloomberg will appeal to the center in this country (Unity08) is laughable. The center has collapsed in this country and people are becoming increasingly polarized: between those who want to kill all the terrorists (be they terrorists or not) and those who want some semblance of sanity and real security.

    History is against Bloomberg–rich, self-funded candidates do not win the Presidency (Perot, Forbes), and the NY Mayorality has long been a sinkhole for political ambitions… not one former mayor has actually gone on from the mayor’s office to a higher office.

  • I think the relevant question vis a vis “who will Bloomberg’s entrance into the race benefit” is whether it will create a new vision for this country and for transforming politics. Independents are beginning to make the statement to all the presidential candidates (and Bloomberg is not excluded from this) that they’re going to have to convince us that they’re more interested in changing America for the better and getting us on right track than getting themselves elected. Bloomberg, at least, has gone through “lesson one” regarding what that means when he ran in NYC.

    For more on the history of Bloomberg and independents, read The Bloomberg Story (by Jacqueline Salit who ran Bloomberg’s independent campaign for mayor in NYC) at
    http://www.independentvoting.org/Bloomberg.html

  • Bloomberg might not be able to win – but I do disagree with the Rasmussen poll’s benign results in that he has the potential to peel off the Jewish constituency – vital in a state like Florida – and also puts the NorthEast into play, meaning that the Dems could NOT afford to run a campaign that ignores the South.

  • that they’re going to have to convince us that they’re more interested in changing America for the better and getting us on right track than getting themselves elected.

    And how, pray tell, do you change America for the better and getting us on the right except by getting elected?

  • I read today that if Bloomberg does announce, it will be at the beginning of 2008. So I am wondering if his statements now and his move to leave the Republican party do not constitute a shot across the bow to both parties that he thinks the contenders we have right now will do nothing to bring the country back or would, in fact, make conditions worse. (I think I may be projecting my own fears onto him, but so be it.) May Racerx at 5 be right in that it is an attempt on Bloomberg’s part to get Al Gore into the race!

    My hunch is that the Republicans would still be able to take the South for granted in 2008 and that a third party candidate and the Democrats would have to fight for the rest of the country. Bloomberg does not come across as a kook like Perot so I think you’d have a very close plurality outcome.

  • He’s like Goldilocks (not “our” Goldilocks; the one from the fairy tale) in his political affiliations, isn’t he? This porridge is too cold, this one’s too hot, so maybe the third one will be just fine.

    Some votes he’d take away from Dems would be indirect. I have several acquaintances who are moderate, well-educated, well-to-do (but not rich) Repubs. They’ve always voted Repub until, as one of them told me, their party had been highjacked by loony-fundies and neo-cons. So, in 2000 and since, they either stayed home or voted Dem, if the Dem was even half-palatable (like the Blue Dogs).

    Either of these actions profted Dems; directly — if they voted Dem, or indirectly — if they didn’t vote Repub. With Bloomberg in the picture, they’ll vote for him. His Jewishness won’t matter to them, as long as he’s not beholden to the AIPAC ideas (bomb Iran), which he doesn’t seem to be.

    I just hope that Racerx is right and that Bloomberg is putting pressure on Gore to run (with, perhaps, himself as a vice-president? Would a Dem pres. candidate be allowed to choose an Indy running mate?)

  • It’s something to worry about, to be sure. But let me say a few things that’ll hopefully calm everyone down:

    1. He hasn’t announced yet. He’s been a politician for a while now and done the public relations thing for even longer. He knows something about it and pays people who also know about it. He’s also got a set of issues that he cares about a lot, and each time his name is mentioned, these issues are also mentioned. Perhaps it’s possible that he’s propping up these rumors just to draw attention to his causes for free.

    2. It’s possible to quell the threat he presents to the Democrats by simply adopting certain parts of his platform, should one emerge, and acting like it’s been ours all along, and there’s a good chance it was. Thus, his appeal will hopefully be stronger to Republicans, making him draw more votes away from the G.O.P. nominee.

    3. What sort of dynamics are going to change between now and the time the race was underway? It seems shocking to me that people in Virginia and Kentucky know enough about him to really want to vote for him. Do people think that once it’s revealed what a liberal guy he is, his support will come from different areas?

    4. As much as it’s likely that he’ll hurt us in the Northeast, he could also help us in the South, for instance. Assuming he doesn’t take away the same level of support from each side or more from the Democrats, perhaps his candidacy will help us peel off some states where we’ve been marginally competitive before.

    5. And if he runs, he runs. There’s nothing that we can do about it. We can worry all we want, but at the end of the day, it’s up to him. If we are ever going to really be competitive with the Republicans, we need to avoid being afraid of challenges that come along.

  • I can’t imagine what makes a zillionaire Jew from New York who favors gun control think he’s going to carry any marginal state. I suspect he quit the Republicans for the same reason any sane person would – after the last 6 1/2 years, he’s embarrassed to be one.

  • I’ve heard that same line from a pundit on NPR today, that Bloomberg would draw votes away from the Democratic candidate. But it just doesn’t ring true for me. If the general public knows anything about him, they know that he’s the REPUBLICAN mayor of New York, not that he started as a Democrat and then switched party affiliations nearly as often as Guiliani has switched wives.

    Given the unappealing slate of lack-luster Republican presidential candidates, if a moderate right-leaning citizen bothers to vote at all, they’d probably vote for Bloomberg just because he’s more palatable than a “scrawny black man”, or a “strident shrew”, or a “pretty-boy fancy pants”. (Hey, that’s NOT how I view them. Heck I’d gladly vote for either one of them. I’m just trying to point out how they might be viewed by the average right-leaning citizen.)

    Add in the media’s tendency to gloss over any flaws that candidates on the right hand of the political spectrum have. Gee, I think the press is practically creaming their shorts over the luscious thought that Bloomberg might be a candidate — and just how many recent newstories about Bloomberg bother to explain that he started out as a Democrat? You can see how the average citizen might wind up with the impression that Bloomberg will save them from the looniness of the Republican slate, and allow them to not have to vote for a Democrat.

    On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that most Democrats know who is a real Democrat and who ain’t one. Real Democrats don’t pretend to be Republicans purely to ride another Republican’s coattails into office, and then switch parties yet again. Furthermore, the Democratic slate is an excellent one this time around, and I can’t see that there’s enough dissatisfaction with any of the candidates that Democratic voters will abandon the party.

    So, I, for one, welcome Mr. Bloomberg into the “cluster*#@k to the whitehouse”.

    • Comments are closed.