PDA

View Full Version : Bloomberg Running For POTUS As Independent


recxjake
12-19-2007, 10:15 PM
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/12/15/bloomberg-mayor-independent-oped-cx_daa_1215bloomberg.html

President Mike?
David A. Andelman, 12.15.07, 12:50 PM ET

Look out, Hillary and Barack, here comes Mike. No, not Mike Huckabee (though he'd better watch out, too). Mike Bloomberg--Mayor Mike as millions of New Yorkers more or less affectionately call him.

And this time it is for real. Folks close to New York City's twice-elected mayor suggest that he's made up his mind to end one of the city's long-running rumors and become an Independent candidate for president.

The date of his announcement? Pencilled in for right after Super Tuesday--Feb. 5. By then Bloomberg would have a pretty good idea of just who would be lining up against his third-party, self-financed billion-dollar campaign.

So far Bloomberg's pseudo-candidacy has consisted of just a lot of dodging and faking. He told Dan Rather, quite definitively it sounded, a couple of months ago, that there was no way he'd toss his Yankees' (or Red Sox) cap in the ring. And he's been nothing but coy since--rather as he was before he announced he was running for mayor.

But now, having been traveling around America raising his national profile for some months, he's off on a world tour, doing the same for his international one. He's been in China, lecturing his hosts and anyone who will listen on the value of removing barriers to information flow and curbing piracy, and in Bali for the U.N. climate change conference.

One big Bloomberg supporter I met at a recent breakfast makes a credible case for a Bloomberg run at the presidency. First, the media-mogul-turned-mayor is prepared to spend up to 20% of his wealth financing an Independent campaign. He is ranked No. 25 on Forbes latest list of richest Americans, with a fortune estimated at $11.5 billion.

Second, as host of other Bloomberg supporters I've talked to agree, his money and his mind make a formidable combination--and a formidable candidate, especially if the two main parties pick candidates that are unappealing to centrist voters or seen to be heavily dependent on particular party constituencies.

Full disclosure. I worked for Bloomberg for nearly five years at Bloomberg News. He was a tough, no-compromise, unbending, inflexible individual. He built Bloomberg L.P. from five people in a room with an idea into a worldwide media enterprise by pure force of will and seed capital from his Wall Street severance, plus a venture capital cash infusion from Merrill Lynch. You don't do that by being a wimp.

A guy who'd spent his whole life dictating to others how they should operate, banning unions, refusing to negotiate, compromise or give way once his mind was made up should have made a catastrophic mayor of America's most diverse and union-driven city. But Mayor Mike has learned the delicate art of compromise. He's learned to deal with unions. He understands the needs and wants and desires of the little people who voted him into office.

In short, from an entrepreneur, he's become a politician. What's different is that he became one without all the baggage that usually accompanies such a transformation.

Some of it has to do with his wealth. Bloomberg won't have to kowtow to special interests--no lobbyists bearing fat PAC contributions, no sponsors of political fund-raisers, no corporate interests.

In fact, he's always been that way pretty much. I recall a story from his days at Bloomberg L.P. when his assistant came in and said that Bill Gates (yes, that Bill Gates) was going to be in New York in a couple of days and wanted to come see him. Not possible, said Mike. His daughter was going to be in a horse show at Madison Square Garden. Bill Gates would have to reschedule.

Whether this is all enough to take Bloomberg to the White House is very much open to question. There are a host of downsides to an Independent candidate--and potentially even more to an Independent president. He might be able to pick a meritocratic bipartisan cabinet, but equally he would have no base of support--especially when dealing with Congress. A new coalition would have to be assembled for every initiative, every Supreme Court nominee, every ambassador.

These are uncharted waters. America never had a successful Independent candidate for president--and except for Teddy Roosevelt's quixotic bid back in 1912, not even one who came close. These issues have never been seriously explored. With Americans showing ever more disenchantment with two-party hegemony, they should be. The outcome of next fall's presidential race may depend on them.

A Bloomberg presidency still remains a long shot. He is rich and astute enough to shorten the odds and hard-nosed enough to try to beat them. But will it be President Mike or Hamlet on the Hudson?

recxjake
12-19-2007, 10:17 PM
Giuliani will have to pick Steve Forbes as his running mate, or someone with a massive amount of wealth to counter Bloom's 2,000,000,000.00.

This should help Republicans win in 08.

banyon
12-19-2007, 10:19 PM
Giuliani will have to pick Steve Forbes as his running mate, or someone with a massive amount of wealth to counter Bloom's 2,000,000,000.00.

This should help Republicans win in 08.

How?

recxjake
12-19-2007, 10:23 PM
How?

He's a liberal.

He appeals to socially liberal, fiscally liberal types of voters - the kind of voters dems like to win over.

banyon
12-19-2007, 10:27 PM
He's a liberal.

He appeals to socially liberal, fiscally liberal types of voters - the kind of voters dems like to win over.

Socially liberal, yes. Fiscally liberal? No. That's the rap on him.

Now who does that remind you of?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/customavatars/avatar6570_20.gif

banyon
12-19-2007, 10:28 PM
If Hillary wins, then he'll also be the only anti-war candidate. That will pull from left and right.

recxjake
12-19-2007, 10:31 PM
Socially liberal, yes. Fiscally liberal? No. That's the rap on him.

Now who does that remind you of?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/customavatars/avatar6570_20.gif

ROFL...

He's a life long Democrat, raised taxes, supports welfare programs......

wazu
12-19-2007, 10:32 PM
Jake is right on this one. Bloomberg is a full-blown liberal. There is no way this hurts anybody but the Democrats.

recxjake
12-19-2007, 10:37 PM
Jake is right on this one. Bloomberg is a full-blown liberal. There is no way this hurts anybody but the Democrats.

I wouldn't go that far and say full blown lib... he's a moderate Democrat.....

However if Rudy gets the nomination, there will most likely be a pro-life candidate, and Ron Paul may run too

1. Republican
2. Democrat
3. Bloom
4, Paul
5. Pro-lifer

banyon
12-19-2007, 10:40 PM
ROFL...

He's a life long Democrat, raised taxes, supports welfare programs......

Economically, Bloomberg tends to be conservative, expressing a distaste of taxes. He has stated, "Taxes are not good things, but if you want services, somebody's got to pay for them, so they're a necessary evil." [34] As mayor, he did raise property taxes to fund budget projects; however, in January 2007 he proposed cuts in property taxes by 5% and cuts in sales taxes including the elimination of taxes on clothing and footwear. Bloomberg pointed to the Wall Street profits and the real estate market as evidence that the city's economy is booming and could handle a tax break. These policies reflect the perception of Bloomberg as a fiscal conservative.[35]

His fiscal conservativism also led him to eliminate the previous $6 billion deficit when he assumed office. (left by whom I wonder? LMAO)He balanced the budget of New York City by raising property taxes and making cuts to city agencies, excluding the police and fire departments. [36]

As a businessman, Bloomberg is respected by the business community and governs with a pro-business platform. He is in favor of providing tax breaks to big corporations for the good of the whole community. As mayor, Bloomberg lobbied to the CEO of Goldman Sachs to establish their headquarters across from Ground zero by promising $1.65 billion in tax breaks. Regarding this deal, Bloomberg stated, "This [New York City] is where the best want to live and work. So I told him [CEO of Goldman Sachs], 'We can help with minimizing taxes. Minimizing your rent. Improving security. But in the end, this is about people.'" [37]

He has had a less cordial relationship with unions as mayor. In 2002, when New York City's transit workers threatened to strike, Bloomberg responded by riding a mountain bike through the city to show how the city could deal with the transit strike by finding alternate means of transportation and not pandering to the unions.[38]

Bloomberg is a staunch advocate of free trade and is strongly opposed to protectionism, stating, "The things that we have to worry about is this protectionist movement that has reared its head again in this country...." He worries about the growth of China and fears the lessening gap between the United States and other countries: "The rest of the world is catching up, and, there are people that say, surpassing us. I hope they are wrong. I hope those who think we are still in good shape are right. But nevertheless, the time to address these issues is right now." [39]

More liberally, Bloomberg puts a strong emphasis on public health and welfare, adopting many liberal policies. As the mayor he made HIV, diabetes, and hypertension all top priorities. He extended the city's smoking ban to all commercial establishments and implemented a trans fat ban in restaurants. [40] He also launched a program called Opportunity NYC which is the nation's first-ever conditional cash transfer pilot program designed to help New Yorkers break the cycle of poverty in the city. He instituted a $7.5 billion municipal affordable housing plan, the largest in the nation, that is supposed to provide 500,000 New Yorkers with housing. [41]

Bloomberg is concerned about poverty and growing class divisions stating, "This society cannot go forward, the way we have been going forward, where the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing." [4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Political_career

Yeah, what a pinko. Hell, after reading this, I'm not sure i can vote for him. What does that tell you?

wazu
12-19-2007, 10:40 PM
I wouldn't go that far and say full blown lib... he's a moderate Democrat.....

However if Rudy gets the nomination, there will most likely be a pro-life candidate, and Ron Paul may run too

1. Republican
2. Democrat
3. Bloom
4, Paul
5. Pro-lifer

Ron Paul is pro-life. CHECK!

wazu
12-19-2007, 10:42 PM
Also, I'm not saying he is Dennis Kucinich, but he is liberal in every major area to some degree.

Probably not more liberal than Hillary, but close.

recxjake
12-19-2007, 10:44 PM
Economically, Bloomberg tends to be conservative, expressing a distaste of taxes. He has stated, "Taxes are not good things, but if you want services, somebody's got to pay for them, so they're a necessary evil." [34] As mayor, he did raise property taxes to fund budget projects; however, in January 2007 he proposed cuts in property taxes by 5% and cuts in sales taxes including the elimination of taxes on clothing and footwear. Bloomberg pointed to the Wall Street profits and the real estate market as evidence that the city's economy is booming and could handle a tax break. These policies reflect the perception of Bloomberg as a fiscal conservative.[35]

His fiscal conservativism also led him to eliminate the previous $6 billion deficit when he assumed office. (left by whom I wonder? LMAO)He balanced the budget of New York City by raising property taxes and making cuts to city agencies, excluding the police and fire departments. [36]

As a businessman, Bloomberg is respected by the business community and governs with a pro-business platform. He is in favor of providing tax breaks to big corporations for the good of the whole community. As mayor, Bloomberg lobbied to the CEO of Goldman Sachs to establish their headquarters across from Ground zero by promising $1.65 billion in tax breaks. Regarding this deal, Bloomberg stated, "This [New York City] is where the best want to live and work. So I told him [CEO of Goldman Sachs], 'We can help with minimizing taxes. Minimizing your rent. Improving security. But in the end, this is about people.'" [37]

He has had a less cordial relationship with unions as mayor. In 2002, when New York City's transit workers threatened to strike, Bloomberg responded by riding a mountain bike through the city to show how the city could deal with the transit strike by finding alternate means of transportation and not pandering to the unions.[38]

Bloomberg is a staunch advocate of free trade and is strongly opposed to protectionism, stating, "The things that we have to worry about is this protectionist movement that has reared its head again in this country...." He worries about the growth of China and fears the lessening gap between the United States and other countries: "The rest of the world is catching up, and, there are people that say, surpassing us. I hope they are wrong. I hope those who think we are still in good shape are right. But nevertheless, the time to address these issues is right now." [39]

More liberally, Bloomberg puts a strong emphasis on public health and welfare, adopting many liberal policies. As the mayor he made HIV, diabetes, and hypertension all top priorities. He extended the city's smoking ban to all commercial establishments and implemented a trans fat ban in restaurants. [40] He also launched a program called Opportunity NYC which is the nation's first-ever conditional cash transfer pilot program designed to help New Yorkers break the cycle of poverty in the city. He instituted a $7.5 billion municipal affordable housing plan, the largest in the nation, that is supposed to provide 500,000 New Yorkers with housing. [41]

Bloomberg is concerned about poverty and growing class divisions stating, "This society cannot go forward, the way we have been going forward, where the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing." [4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Political_career

Yeah, what a pinko. Hell, after reading this, I'm not sure i can vote for him. What does that tell you?

ROFL... you just proved my point

He raised property taxes....

More liberally, Bloomberg puts a strong emphasis on public health and welfare, adopting many liberal policies. As the mayor he made HIV, diabetes, and hypertension all top priorities. He extended the city's smoking ban to all commercial establishments and implemented a trans fat ban in restaurants. [40] He also launched a program called Opportunity NYC which is the nation's first-ever conditional cash transfer pilot program designed to help New Yorkers break the cycle of poverty in the city. He instituted a $7.5 billion municipal affordable housing plan, the largest in the nation, that is supposed to provide 500,000 New Yorkers with housing. [41]

Bloomberg is concerned about poverty and growing class divisions stating, "This society cannot go forward, the way we have been going forward, where the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing."





ohh... and that 6 billion dollar deficit you were laughing about... Rudy balanced the budget, turned a 2 billion dollar deficit into a 2 billion dollar surplus until 9/11 hit the city

wazu
12-19-2007, 10:45 PM
Yeah, what a pinko. Hell, after reading this, I'm not sure i can vote for him. What does that tell you?

Funny, you say that sarcastically, but it's exactly what I was thinking as I read it. He had a few token statements about taxes being bad, says he's "in favor" of tax cuts for major corporations, etc. Sounds like political B.S. to me. The truth is he raised taxes, and allocates spending for a bunch of welfare garbage.

banyon
12-19-2007, 10:47 PM
I wouldn't go that far and say full blown lib... he's a moderate Democrat.....

However if Rudy gets the nomination, there will most likely be a pro-life candidate, and Ron Paul may run too

1. Republican
2. Democrat
3. Bloom
4, Paul
5. Pro-lifer

I agree and have thought this could be the scenario for a good while. I see Dobson or Brownback as the "Pro-Lifer"/Southern candidate (not that those guys are from the South).

jAZ
12-19-2007, 10:49 PM
Bloomberg/McCain will put Obama into the WH.

banyon
12-19-2007, 10:51 PM
ohh... and that 6 billion dollar deficit you were laughing about... Rudy balanced the budget, turned a 2 billion dollar deficit into a 2 billion dollar surplus until 9/11 hit the city

Don't forget his work on the deficit in the Hamptons.


Also it's nice that you basically just cherry picked the health care section and then ignored the other things that showed some fiscal conservatism.

What's Rudy's health care plan again? Anyway, that's an issue with broad public support, even in the corporate/Republican demo.

wazu
12-19-2007, 10:52 PM
Bloomberg/McCain will put Obama into the WH.

Ah, but Bloomberg/Obama puts McCain in the WH! HOW YA LIKE DEM APPLES?!

banyon
12-19-2007, 10:54 PM
Bloomberg/McCain will put Obama into the WH.

I'm still thinking Chuck Hagel. And I'm thinking that it's been planned for quite a while that they would join up.

Remember when Hagel used to be so vocal in his opposition to the WH on Iraq? Then Bloomberg starts thinking about running, Hagel doesn't enter the Republican primary (even though I think he had previously considered it) and he quiets down...

Plus I'm not sure McCain would take that step down the ladder rung to be Veep for someone with less experience than his.

banyon
12-19-2007, 10:56 PM
Funny, you say that sarcastically, but it's exactly what I was thinking as I read it. He had a few token statements about taxes being bad, says he's "in favor" of tax cuts for major corporations, etc. Sounds like political B.S. to me. The truth is he raised taxes, and allocates spending for a bunch of welfare garbage.

I can see you saying some of this stuff was lip service, but there are some actual policy choices he made in that post while he was mayor. Do they not count for anything?

prhom
12-19-2007, 10:59 PM
This is the best news I've heard in a long time. Finally, there's going to be a candidate I can feel good about supporting. I hate the Republican foreign policy, but can't stand the Democratic bias against business and making money. This is gonna be great. Too bad he'll probably lose... I know I'm in the minority.

jAZ
12-19-2007, 11:05 PM
I'm still thinking Chuck Hagel. And I'm thinking that it's been planned for quite a while that they would join up.

Remember when Hagel used to be so vocal in his opposition to the WH on Iraq? Then Bloomberg starts thinking about running, Hagel doesn't enter the Republican primary (even though I think he had previously considered it) and he quiets down...

Plus I'm not sure McCain would take that step down the ladder rung to be Veep for someone with less experience than his.
If I were Bloomberg, I'd want McCain over Hagel... but to be honest, I forgot about Hagel. Didn't they have rumored discussions first time around (this summer)?

banyon
12-19-2007, 11:11 PM
If I were Bloomberg, I'd want McCain over Hagel... but to be honest, I forgot about Hagel. Didn't they have rumored discussions first time around (this summer)?


(about 2:50 into the video)

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/riyqyPQxkNg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/riyqyPQxkNg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

wazu
12-20-2007, 12:27 AM
One more thing - I'll believe this when I hear him announce.

recxjake
12-20-2007, 08:40 AM
If I were Bloomberg, I'd want McCain over Hagel... but to be honest, I forgot about Hagel. Didn't they have rumored discussions first time around (this summer)?

McCain would not run as an indepenedent.

Cochise
12-20-2007, 09:23 AM
Finally, there's going to be a candidate I can feel good about supporting. I hate the Republican foreign policy, but can't stand the Democratic bias against business and making money.

There might be more of you out there than people think.

Maybe this could be like Perot all over again, but this time he'll can the Democrats' chances.

It would be nice for Hillary to be a victim of what put her husband in office in the first place. :D

jAZ
12-20-2007, 09:24 AM
McCain would not run as an indepenedent.
He nearly ran as a Democrat in 2004. He's very much an independent who certainly doesn't need the GOP to get elected to the Senate in Arizona. This is his last go around as a Presidential candidate. If he can't win the GOP primary, there is nothing that locks him into the GOP (unlike in 2004).

If Bloomberg would want him, he would definately run... and he would add far more to that ticket than almost everyone else. Powell might bring more than McCain... the rest of that list is very short.

Cochise
12-20-2007, 09:31 AM
I wonder if this has anything to do with whatever story McCain is trying to get the NY Times to kill.

banyon
12-20-2007, 03:51 PM
Bloomberg And Hagel Holding Regular Calls
December 20, 2007 04:07 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/20/bloomberg-and-hagel-holdi_n_77734.html

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel have been conducting regular, private phone conversations over the past few months in an effort to "feel each other out" for a possible presidential run, sources have told the Huffington Post.

It has been widely speculated that the two men could mount a third-party White House ticket. And while the maverick Republican and the independent mayor have met in the past, the private phone calls provide the clearest indication yet that they are considering such a move.

Sources with knowledge of the conversations say they usually occur every few weeks and always are done in private. As such, the topics of discussion remain unclear. But one high-ranking aide confirmed that they have discussed Hagel joining the presidential campaign should Bloomberg choose to run.

"It has to come from Bloomberg because Hagel can't really do anything," said the source, before adding that there was no indication that the two have declared a political alliance. A decision on whether to run will likely be made once the Democrats and Republicans have settled on a nominee.

The Bloomberg-Hagel presidential rumors began after the two had lunch together last May. Days later, Hagel appeared on CBS' Face the Nation and remarked that he would consider running on an independent ticket with Bloomberg, presumably, at the head. A few months later, the Washington Post's David Broder, wrote a flattering piece about the possibility of the two men mounting a run at the White House. As recently as a few weeks ago the pair reunited for a dinner in New York City.

"We didn't make any deals," Hagel said after the meal. "But I think Mayor Bloomberg is the kind of individual who should seriously think about this. It's a great country to think about - a New York boy and a Nebraska boy to be teamed up leading this nation."

Apart from Hagel, Bloomberg has made several political moves that suggest he is interested in running for the White House. Early in 2007 he switched his party affiliation from Republican to Independent. And in late November, the Huffington Post reported that the mayor has been receiving foreign policy briefings from Nancy Soderberg, a Clinton administration official who was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Mayor Bloomberg's office initially declined to comment. A request for comment from Senator Hagel's office was not returned.

The dynamics of a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket are unique if not at times incongruous. Both men share objections to President Bush's policies in Iraq and have shown outward willingness to buck the two-party system. But on domestic affairs, and especially social policies like abortion and gay marriage, their stances are drastically different. Still, those in favor of a third-party ticket see enough similarities to create the framework for at least a portion of a White House cabinet.

"As you build a unity team, one of the things you, of course, take into consideration is what are the strengths and weakness of each person on that team," said Doug Bialey, co-founder of Unity08, a group supporting an independent presidential ticket in 2008. "It may not be necessary. It may be that there is a member of the team that wouldn't be a great vice president but would be great to have on the team."

And indeed one of the chief purposes of the private phone conversations, sources say, is to help build the personal and political gap should Bloomberg choose to run with Hagel by his side.

"The [conversation] are not always political," an aide speculated. "They are often just the two of them getting to know each other."

Baby Lee
12-20-2007, 04:31 PM
He nearly ran as a Democrat in 2004.
Translation, a very different version of events has been around for 3 years, but Kerry recently came out with another version, which McCain has since characterized as 'not a shred of truth,' so I guess I'll take Kerry's version as gospel.

jiveturkey
12-20-2007, 04:40 PM
Bloomberg/Hagel as a 3rd option would be great.

banyon
12-20-2007, 04:43 PM
If Hillary is the nominee, my vote will probably go to this pairing.

Baby Lee
12-20-2007, 04:54 PM
If Hillary is the nominee, my vote will probably go to this pairing.
If Hillary and Huckabee are the two noms, I may be right there with you.
Though it's more of a fine edge for me. Not a lot of difference between 'big government to make us all better people' and 'big government to make us all like Jesus' so far as I can tell.

jAZ
12-20-2007, 09:27 PM
Translation, a very different version of events has been around for 3 years, but Kerry recently came out with another version, which McCain has since characterized as 'not a shred of truth,' so I guess I'll take Kerry's version as gospel.
Translation... It wouldn't have been the first time...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html

And I would be far more shocked were a GOP candidate currently running for President to do anything by strongly deny such a report.

recxjake
12-22-2007, 03:54 PM
Who is Michael Bloomberg Politically?

The truth regarding Mayor Bloomberg politically is that he is a man of the American Left in the mold of fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer, and perhaps the truest example of a RINO (Republican In Name Only) that there has ever been.

Michael Bloomberg was a lifelong member of the Democratic Party. When it became clear that he would be unable to win the Democratic nomination for Mayor, he abruptly switched his party affiliation to Republican in order to run in the Republican primary. The Republican party, seeking a better candidate to face a strong Democratic challenge from attorney and public advocate Mark Green, welcomed Michael Bloomberg as the best chance to retain the Mayor’s office. Bloomberg’s background as a successful businessman was particularly appealing in the wake of the rebuilding efforts after 9/11.

But where does he stand on the issues? Let’s review:

Abortion - Pro-Choice and opposes the PBA ban.

Gun Control - Bloomberg is one of the nation’s foremost advocates of gun control. He is currently the co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group whose proposals critics contend impact legal gun owners far more than they do criminals.

Mayor Bloomberg has drawn the the particular ire of the NRA over his Gun Control tactics in NYC and has sparked protests as far away as Virginia for bringing a lawsuit against two Virginia gun stores (for more on this story, as well as a “gun give away” to raise money for the legal defense fund of the owners of the Virginia gun stores, see here).

Gay Marriage - Favors the legalization of same-sex marriages.

Taxes - Bloomberg’s solution to the fiscal crisis faced by New York City in wake of the 9/11 was to impose billions of dollars in new taxes (a $3.5 billion dollar increase in 2003 alone). Cuts in unnecessary government spending were not on the table.

Personal Freedoms - Mayor Bloomberg may be the foremost “nanny-stater” to hold elected office in the United States. One of the first measures of his administration was the imposition of a smoking ban in NYC’s bars and nightclubs. In June of 2006, NYC became the first municipality to ban the use of trans-fat in city restaurants.

Immigration -Has described border enforcement as “futile” and supports comprehensive immigration reform in the mold of McCain-Kennedy. Bloomberg has issued an executive order to city employees instructing them not to ask or disclose information regarding a person’s immigration status.

In all likelihood, if Mayor Bloomberg were “Senator Bloomberg”, he would have an ACU rating somewhere in the 20’s. When viewed in their entirety, we can see that Bloomberg’s positions are hardly those of a candidate who will reach out to conservative/moderate Independents and conservative Dems.

Worst Case Scenario: Bloomberg 2008 = John Anderson 1980

A Bloomberg 2008 run immediately draws to mind the last time a liberal Republican mounted a serious third-party independent candidacy-Illinois Rep. John Anderson.

Like Bloomberg, Anderson’s run was initially greeted with great enthusiasm and the expectations of having a significant impact on the race.

John Anderson began at over 25% in national polls from the onset of his campaign. However, his support began to drop at a rate of about 1.5% a week-and towards the end, even more.

On election day, Anderson did win 7% of the popular vote, but the diffusion of that 7% over the nation as a whole led Anderson to fail to win even a single precinct in the entire United States. Disappointed in his inability to play even a spoiler role, Anderson became an advocate of Instant Run-Off voting.

Even with his $1 billion, it is difficult to imagine a geographic area that would be particularly receptive to his positions outside of the Democratic strongholds of the Northeast and perhaps the Pacific Northwest. And even there, his ability to defeat the eventual Democratic nominee is difficult to imagine.

Best Case Scenario: Bloomberg 2008 Leads to GOP Landslide

Many people of course would point to Ross Perot’s 1992 Independent run as an example of a worst case scenario (I would argue that Perot only made Bush’s loss worse. However, you can play with the numbers for yourself with Dave Leip’s essential Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections to see if you can reasonably get Bush to 270 electoral votes).

The fallacy in that argument is the assumption that former party affiliation, and not candidate ideology, is the primary factor in voters decision on third-party candidates- (I don’t like my party’s candidate, so I’ll vote for the other candidate from my party in the race.) It seems ludicrous, in my opinion, to assert that someone who decides to defect from one of the two major parties would do so for anything other than ideological preference.

Ross Perot was a lifelong Republican. In the 2008 crop of GOP candidates, Perot would fit comfortably into the Tancredo, Hunter, Buchananite wing of the GOP. So even if we persist with the assumption that Perot cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 election, we are talking about a bird of a different feather in Michael Bloomberg.

A better possibility is for Bloomberg to siphon the votes of Democratic leaning Independents away from the Democratic nominee. Even in a country that is perhaps more receptive than ever for a third-party, it is difficult to imagine rank-and-file Republicans defecting from Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson to a third-party candidate who is more Dick Durbin than Tom Coburn. The consequence of which in states like MI, OH, MN, WI, FL, MO, AR, OR, and PA (as well as other Northeastern states like NY and NJ depending upon the GOP nominee) should be a cause for excitement, not anxiety, for Republicans.

The key in understanding a Michael Bloomberg presidential run is the fact that he is closer ideologically to Ralph Nader than to H. Ross Perot.

The American electorate is not aware of this yet.

But they will be…

www.race42008.com