Mister Bloomberg goes to Washington?
Michael Bloomberg's not-so-surprising decision to bolt the republican party is being widely portrayed as a first step in an eventual Presidential run by our billionaire mayor.
There are two ways of looking at such a candidacy. One would involve taking into account his vast personal fortune, which would allow him to run a national campaign without having to engage in the drudgery of raising money. Given that candidates generally have to spend half their time, or more, raising funds, that's a huge advantage in itself. He also has something that previous independent candidates did not, which is a solid record of governance. However one may feel about specific policies of the Bloomberg administration, he's done a reasonably good job of running New York City. As far as technocrats go, Mayor Mike is accomplished.
On the flip side of the coin is the long and dispiriting history of independent or third-party candidates, lucidly laid out by Devilstower on Daily Kos. One might add that Mike Bloomberg was lucky in running only against opponents, Mark Green and Freddy Ferrer, who managed to be, in the former case, divisive, in the latter, divisive and an incompetent candidate and notoriously uninspiring.
What I don't see is a natural constituency or issues base for an independent. There will always be some resonance to a message of pox on both your major-party houses, certainly if its combined with a quarter of a billion dollars in television advertising and a record in government that, while perhaps uninspiring, speaks of competence. After the Bush years, competence carries a premium; people would like to know, in a desire that cuts across ideological barriers, that their government is being capably administered. But that doesn't provide clarity on the moral questions the country is asking - how to get out of Iraq, how to fix the health care system, how to properly balance liberty and security. Competence will carry you only so far when the nation wants to know how these questions will be answered, not just that any answers will be provided in a reasonably professional manner.
The newest polling bears out this analysis. From Quinnipiac:
In a hypothetical all-New York presidential race, Sen. Hillary Clinton wins with 43 percent of voters statewide, followed by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani with 29 percent and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with 16 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
That's an interesting result on a number of levels, certainly for this: Giuliani attracts the New York generic republican vote, which is roughly a third of the vote, as was demonstrated in the last election. Bloomberg's support, if you start with the results of November, comes entirely out of the Democratic column. Alternatively, the prior Quinnipiac poll, showing a 50% to 42% Clinton lead in a head-to-head matchup with Giuliani, speaks to the idea that Bloomberg could attract support from both sides of the aisle.
Historically, no independent candidate has ever won the Presidency. If that should happen some day, the nation would be in uncharted waters, for example, on the question of how such a President would navigate legislation through Congress. However, we're not at that point yet, nor will we be, I think. What is clear is this: independent candidacies can radically reshuffle the electoral deck for the major parties. Some on the right still blame Ross Perot for Bill Clinton's victory in 1992, erroneously in my view; while Democrats have cause to look with disgust at Ralph Nader, may he burn in hell forever, for handing the White House to George W. Bush.
What seems clear, however, from Quinnipiac's fortuitously timed poll, is this: Mayor Mike does not have enough of a base, even in New York where people are intimately familiar with his record and persona, to win the Presidency. History suggests that this will not change. However, history also suggests that he might well give it a go, and decisively affect the outcome in 2008. Republicans are, and have cause to be, unhappy with the field of candidates from their party. Some Democrats, if saddled with a nominee Hillary, might very well come to feel the same way. Certainly, the junior Senator's unprecedented and persistent negatives at this stage of the campaign are giving many Democratic strategists pause. Given that, in this most recent poll, her support vis-Ã -vis last November drops twenty points, they have some reason for hesitancy.
It's very early yet in this Presidential cycle, and the fat lady isn't even in the taxi to the opera house yet. But if Mike Bloomberg decides to run, all bets on the outcome in November 2008 are officially off. He has plenty of the only currency that matters in American politics - good old-fashioned greenbacks, a billion or so. Watch this space.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2008 Elections | Public opinion polls | Michael Bloomberg
Bloomberg
Submitted by Liberal forever (not verified) on 20 June 2007 - 1:11pm.
Michael Bloomberg is a socially liberal moderate. He is pro gun-control. He is pro choice. He is Jewish. He is from the northeast. I do not see how he appeals to red states at all. All those conservative red states in the bible belt south and the west are still going to vote republican. What state that has gone red in recent years could he win? Florida? On the other hand, there are blue states he could pick off. Places that are receptive to independents. Connecticut. Vermont. Rhode Island. The other states he'd get a lot of votes in are swing states that have gone blue in recent elections but are always very close. He'll get plenty of votes in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Wisconsin. But likely not enough to win any of those states, where enough voters will vote straight tickets to prevent an independent from possibly winning.
Bloomberg will never take enough blue states away from the democrats to overcome the numbers of states that will stay reliably red. Nor could he take enough red states to overcome the numbers of states that will stay reliably blue. What red states could Bloomberg win? Name one? So I do not see how he can win at all. The only thing his candidacy would be sure to do is kill Rudy Guiliani. They have the same base in the same city/state. It would make no sense whatsoever for the GOP to nominate Guiliani if Bloomberg is running.
Would Michael Bloomberg let
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 20 June 2007 - 1:47pm.
Would Michael Bloomberg let the real estate industry drive his domestic policy like he has his City policy? Boy, now wouldn't that be delightful!
I'm not sweating it...
Submitted by nync on 20 June 2007 - 2:27pm.
I really don't think he's going to run for President. This is typical speculation on the part of the media, and we all know that the real reason that we have elections and political campaigns is for the sole purpose of entertaining the media. And God knows that with 20 candidates already we need many more.
I don't think Bloomberg wants to be President. Who would want to inherit the mess that Bush is leaving behind? But clearly Bloomberg wants to be a major player, and he will be. But in this case I think he'd rather be kingmaker than to be king.
I'm sure he knows that an independent candidacy would end up being a spoiler that would create unknown consequences. As an outspoken advocate for another candidate he would have a greater impact on the outcome - one to his liking - than he would as a spoiler.
So I actually take him at his word that he wants to complete his term as Mayor and then be a philanthropist. Despite what some in the media think, not everyone wants to be President. I think this is just a lot of media silliness.
As for his viability as a candidate: yes, there's his money, and that's obviously his strong suit. But on the issues? Hey, he supported the war in Iraq, he kowtowed to the GOP and had hundreds of RNC protesters arrested without just cause, and he has devoted much of his mayoralty to helping his rich friends get richer with sweetheart deals (Atlantic Yards, West Side Stadium). Sure, he's been a more progressive Republican on abortion, gun laws, etc. So was Giuliani at one time. You have to be if you want to be Mayor of NY. That's not enough.
Plus, he's a lousy speaker. He has an annoying voice and he's boring. Too many people credit him for his personality for being better than Giuliani. That's not much of a contest. And yes, he got elected by beating very weak candidates. And being a competent mayor is not enough of a selling point. Remember which candidate a few years ago said the election was about competence? Mike Dukakis. Yeah, how'd that turn out?
I'm not going to sweat over this. Sure, if Bloomberg decided to run, I'd be greatly concerned. But I think this is just silly media speculation, which of course Bloomberg will use to his advantage. You know how silly the media folks get. If Paris Hilton spoke out on political issues, they would be pushing her to run.
Bloomberg might have generational appeal
Submitted by Liberal forever (not verified) on 20 June 2007 - 5:56pm.
A Bloomberg candidacy could have generational appeal. There are a fair number of younger voters who see both parties as relics of days gone by, outdated and often corrupt bureacracies set up by their grandparents and great grandparents. Bloomberg could run on the message that election day 2008 can be the "New American Independence Day", the day that american citizens look boldly into the future by soundly rejecting both the democrats and the republicans.
Bloomberg can run on the message that the nominees of both parties have already had to sell their souls to get where they are. Hillary owes favors. Obama owes favors. Edwards owes favors. Guiliani owes favors. Romney owes favors. McCain owes favors. Mike Bloomberg doesn't owe favors. Mike Bloomberg can campaign as the one candidate who "can't be bought, because there isn't a lobbyist or political hack in this country who can afford me. The only people I will answer to, the ONLY people, are the American people. I will be the first *truly* Independent President of the United States"
Are you telling me that such a message wouldn't resonate? Particularly if combined with a simultaneous message for all citizens to reject party affiliations and machines on all levels?
Bloomberg's campaign could be something of a movement, win or lose. A lot of people dread the typical republican vs. democratic presidential campaigns of recent times, full of stereotypes and heated rhetoric, decided by a handful of votes and hanging chads in Ohio or Florida and nobody really knowing who won. Bloomberg's campaign could appeal to those who want something different, who feel that neither party represents them anymore.
Well...
Submitted by Bouldin on 20 June 2007 - 10:44pm.
...absent actual data to support statements like:
There are a fair number of younger voters who see both parties as relics of days gone by, outdated and often corrupt bureacracies [sic] set up by their grandparents and great grandparents.
...I tend to disregard your analysis. The two-party system is rather healthy from where I'm sitting, even if that's something of a separate discussion. There is no viable movement for a departure from the two major parties; quite the contrary, the Democrats have solidified their lead among younger voters.
Just being pedantic
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 21 June 2007 - 8:23am.
There was one independent who was elected President. In fact, he was elected unanimously.
Of course, in George Washington's time there were no strong political parties yet. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for that to change. Then came the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove type of slanders (managed by Thomas Jefferson) against a weak former Vice President (John Adams -- who happened to be President at the time). Then came a war we should never have started (1812), fiscal disaster (the bankruptcy of 1811) and general mismanagement.
Plus ca change...
I think there are a lot of
Submitted by Liberal forever (not verified) on 21 June 2007 - 12:12pm.
Zap. Banned users like rwallnerny might wish to ask whether or not they're actually welcome to return before they have the bad taste to do so.
Nice try, sockpuppet Wallner
Submitted by Bouldin on 21 June 2007 - 2:39pm.
...but you're still banned here, were banned for a reason, and will continue to be banned as long as I have anything to say about it.
Lest you consider trying the same stunt again, let me just note that you can't help your signature M.O., which is making vast, unsupported statements, usually related to Presidential politics, and then repeating them again and again. In this case, above, I asked you to supply data to support your contention, to which you had no response but to repeat your prior assertion. In other words, to the disrespect inherent in ignoring the editorial decision to ban you, you added a lack of the remedial intelligence required to not engage in behavior that contributed to your original banning as a disruptive, unproductive voice in the first place.
Goodbye. Don't come back.
Bloomberg Independent but California did it First!
Submitted by Connor Vlakancic (not verified) on 21 June 2007 - 10:42pm.
California NonPartisan Initiative Introduction
California’s General Election, November 2008,
NonPartisan Independent candidates
HUNDREDS OF THEM!!
CA Assembly, CA Senate, US Representative and even President candidate(s)
On May 14, 2007 California Attorney General website listed the Initiative Measure to achieve this goal.
http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/activeindex.php?active=A Select: # 07-0019
SECTION 1. Title This Initiative Measure shall be known and may be cited as the:
“California NonPartisan Candidate Qualification Actâ€
SECTION 2. Findings
The people of the state of California do hereby declare their no confidence frustration with (1) partisan political malfeasance and (2) duopoly polarized partisan political party failure to produce desirable visionary candidates of viable eclectic-pragmatic leadership competence.
SECTION 3. Purpose
This California statute disenfranchises or eliminates existing multiple incongruent Election Code procedures of Signatures-in-Lieu, Nomination Signatures and Write-in Candidate Qualification Signatures for nonpartisan General Election candidates, and, creates a new aligned signature gathering process for state wide and district nonpartisan candidates, including a default write-in candidate qualification means.
The whitepaper introduction is at: www.NonPartisanPatriot.com
We invite your interest in this Initiative Measure. Attorney General Jerry Brown will release the official Title and Summary in 25 to 30 days. The official press release will include who is our "Charlton Heston" media spokesperson.
Our email address is: Independent@NonPartisanPatriot.com
Your interest is sincerely requested as your participation is critical!
Sincerely,
Connor Vlakancic, Advocate, CAO
California NonPartisan Independent Committee 501(c)4
Contact at: 202-558-7077
After an inital moment of concern
Submitted by sidnora on 22 June 2007 - 6:59am.
I doubt that he will run. I think he's smart enough to keep the history of third-party candidacies in mind; I just hope he's not cynical enough to want to be a spoiler.
While I think he's going to keep his options open for the next 7-8 months, I suspect that part of his thinking behind this move is to give him some breathing space for when he eventually endorses the Democratic nominee.
Just because you ask
Submitted by Liberal forever (not verified) on 22 June 2007 - 4:56pm.
Bouldin your ego is so big that you think just because you ask somebody something, they are somehow required to answer? Anyway I was clearly making my own personal observation, it seems to ME,
[Ed. note MB]: Ah yes, you see, but there's the rub: your opinions are of scant interest. You have been banned for being unproductive, combative, and generally a thoroughly unpleasant human being, rwallnerny. Getting yourself a different account name doesn't remove the burden of that. And as long as I have anything to do with it, you will continue to be banned. Friends of empty, formulaic prattle can find your work over on Room Eight.
Bloomberg
...has been competent, if often wrong. I've been defending some of his policy ideas more than usual, lately. Lord knows we could do worse than to have a competent, practical, non-ideological manager type in the White House, compared to the insane conservative movement follies of the past six and half years.
But it's hard to see this as anything more than a vanity run. Bloomberg's smart - he must understand the same points you're making -- independent third-party candidates don't win the American presidency, they just screw up everything else.
Still, it seems like Bloomberg has long thought that the laws of political gravity don't apply to him. Here's hoping that, when he finally comes crashing down, he doesn't smash the Dems' chances in '08.