Bloomberg Inches Yet Closer To Running As Centrist Independent
It now appears as if the public, the media and the political establishment are being prepared for an announcement that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will launch an independent run for President.
Yesterday we ran THIS POST which noted Bloomberg’s upcoming meeting with Unity 08, a high-powered bipartisan group that is on the brink of finding a candidate to back — and to buck two parties increasingly mired in partisanship, polarization and seemingly lacking a desire to truly aggregate national political interests.
That’s ONE media leak type story.
And now here’s ANOTHER via the New York Times — which means the word is being slowly eased out. Some of it repeats what we had in our other post. But here’s the key info that this writer has now heard verbally from two other analysts as well:
Next week’s meeting, reported on Sunday in The Washington Post, comes as the mayor’s advisers have been quietly canvassing potential campaign consultants about their availability in the coming months.
And Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those conversations. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested several scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee.
A final decision by Mr. Bloomberg about whether to run is unlikely before February. Still, he and his closest advisers are positioning themselves so that if the mayor declares his candidacy, a turnkey campaign infrastructure will virtually be in place.
Bloomberg aides have studied the process for launching independent campaigns, which formally begins March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating nominating petitions in Texas. If Democrats and Republicans have settled on their presumptive nominees at that point, Mr. Bloomberg will have to decide whether he believes those candidates are vulnerable to a challenge from a pragmatic, progressive centrist, which is how he would promote himself.
Some other details we have read about or were told about privately are in here as well:
Mr. Bloomberg, who has tried to seize a national platform on gun control, the environment and other issues, has been regularly briefed in recent months on foreign policy by, among others, Henry A. Kissinger, his friend and the former secretary of state, and Nancy Soderberg, an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration.
These aren’t usually the kinds of briefings municipal mayors seek (unless they write weblogs).
Advisers have said Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, might invest as much as $1 billion of his own fortune (he spent about $160 million on his two mayoral races) on a presidential campaign.
But they warned that while they were confident of getting on the ballot in every state, the process was complicated and fraught with legal challenges, and that Mr. Bloomberg would begin with an organizational disadvantage, competing against rivals who have been campaigning full time for years.
Another tidbit in the Times piece that echoes what has been written and said before is that Bloomberg does NOT want to be seen as “a rich Ralph Nader” — someone who is in the race but doesn’t really have a chance to win, although he could influence the debates and take votes away from someone else as a “spoiler.”
One person close to the mayor, who requested anonymity so as not to be seen discussing internal strategy, stressed that Mr. Bloomberg would run only if he believed he could win.
“He’s not going to do it to influence the debate,” the person said.
Meanwhile, former Republican Presidential candidate Steve Forbes fully expects Bloomberg to run. USA Today’s On Politics blog:
“I think it would be highly unlikely that he wouldn’t run,” former Republican presidential candidate and media magnate Steve Forbes said today of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Forbes, who’s supporting the presidential bid of Republican (and former New York mayor) Rudy Giuliani, said on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that he’s convinced that Bloomberg will mount an independent run for the White House.
“I’ve thought, for a long time, he’s itching to do it,” Forbes said, according to a transcript sent to us by CNN. “He may have blown hot and cold on it, short-term. But he’s itching to do it. And so he can wait. He’s got the resources to wait until after February 5th, see who the two party nominees are.
“But unless something extraordinary happens, I expect him in the race.”
And who knows?
The American political process — if you include the way campaigns are run, negative campaigning, the tone of talk radio and some aspects of the blogosphere — may have disgusted enough people so that a candidate who doesn’t have the same predictable reactions, whose utterances don’t elicited the all-knowing smug wink and nod from those TV analyst talking heads and isn’t out of a politico cookie-cutter could have REAL appeal.
It looked like it could happen for Ross Perot in 1992, until he withdrew and jabbered about Republican operatives planning to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. By the time time Perot got in again, he had irretrievably lost Big Mo.
If Bloomberg does get in, many Americans open to a new option will be holding their breath — hoping he doesn’t have an engaged daughter.
17 Responses to “Bloomberg Inches Yet Closer To Running As Centrist Independent”
I wonder if Bloomberg has been promised a cabinet seat or an Ambassadorship in order to take on such a pointless effort.
Since about 45% of the voters are automatic Democratic voters but only about 35% are automatic Republican voters, that leaves elections over 20% of the voters (and actually probably less). All a Bloomberg campaign does it splits that 20% three ways instead of two ways. Such a three way split ensures a Democratic party rout and makes it easier for the Democratic Party to get 60 seats in the Senate.
And 99.9% of Superdestroyer’s statistics are made up from whole cloth.
Davebo,
Go back and look at the the 1992 elections results. the first president Clinton received about 45% of the vote and the first President Bush received about 35% of the vote. That leaves about 15% of the vote where elections really occur in addition to get out the vote.
No matter who the Democrats nomination, that candidate will get about 45% of the vote unless Ralph Nader or some other left of the Democratic candidate rns and picks off a couple of percent.
Does anyone believe that Bloomberg will get any votes from blacks, Hispanics, public employees, academics, or the welfare classes. Bloomberg appeals to the 15% that election are fought over and has almost no appeal to the core Democratic groups.
Bloomberg does NOT want to be seen as “a rich Ralph Nader”
As if. Nader, for all his other faults, has made more of a lasting impact on American life (can you say “seat belts?”) than all the current candidates combined — in either party.
if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus … John Edwards
Huckabee and Edwards are flip sides of the same coin: southern populists, anti-corporate crusaders, enemies of the east coast elitist establishment. It would be more accurate to say that Bloomberg himself is poles apart from those two guys — he’s a member of the east coast elitist corporate establishment. Just what this country needs.
Not.
As for similarities with the Perot phenomenon, I just don’t see it. If the Perot movement has any lingering hangers-on, they would have more in common with someone like Ron Paul, not Michael Bloomberg.
It was 43-38-19. (Clinton-Bush-Perot)
Bloomberg = junk gun lawsuits = DQed by Americans of quality.
Bloomberg, a “centrist”? [snicker] And Unity ’08, perpetuating nice, safe, quiet business as usual in overgrown Washington (“moderation” or “centrism” insofar as liberals are concerned), is a “reformist” organization. [snicker]
He is notoriously far left — Move-On or Green Party material — fringist.
Huckabee is sincere, while Edwards is fake.
He’d be grabbed by the GOP if needed, despite his liberal as well as country-club, OK-with-big-government background. I could see the GOP leadership trying that if Huckabee actually made more progress after Iowa (which I doubt will happen) or even in the case of McCain (too often self-serving).
Or that have no definitive positions, i.e., are mushy moderates. (“Just don’t take away my bwankee, my big government in Washington and my middle-class entitlements!”)
Don’t forget that it’s Hillary Clinton who is likely to be the Dem nominee. She repels more people than any other candidate. Bloomberg can exploit this, and he’s more competent and arguably more deserving of the GOP nomination than Giuliani. At least one Religious Right leader sold his soul to Giuliani because Giuliani at the time was the leader of the GOP field (may still be seen as such; we don’t know how far he’s really going to fall overall until after Feb 5) and the endorsement was made in an effort to defeat Hillary Clinton first and foremost. Bloomberg could exploit this, particularly if he was a GOP candidate eventually (not an independent; he wouldn’t do nearly as well) despite all the bad baggage he carries himself.
As Yosemite Sam would say… “Dem’s fightin’ words!”. For some people that is.
Myself and many others have definitive positions but no candidates from the Big 2 that represent us. To me, all of them, Bloomberg included (with the exception of Ron Paul), seem like a bowl of oatmeal minus the “fixins”. Bland and lumpy. Unity ’08 is just pure entertainment and no backbone. They won’t cause any ruckus simply because they are incapable of it and really don’t want it. They are sanitized safe activism, talk-festers, and feel-gooders spouting off how they are using technology to “do something revolutionary” . Yeah, do something like bring in a Bloomberg. Wow. That’s a zinger.
That’s the key (emphasized)!
It reminds me of one group in the 1980s working on constitutional reforms that fused rather than further separated powers, and banned ticket splitting, etc. Ugh.
No wonder they have contempt for (fear of?) third-party candidates and independent candidates (real ones, not Bloomberg) and why the Wall Street Journal will snipe at proportional representation any time it’s suggested. (The Journal would probably even be against approval voting.)
Bloomberg will get in only if Hillary wind the D nom. If Obama, or Edwards, takes it, there’ll be no point for his candidacy, because they are the outsider (black) and populist that a billionaire East Coast Jew can never be considered. But, next to Hillary and Romney (or Rudy) he’s the only choice for sane Americans.
Edwards’s populism is fake. P.T. Barnum was right, though…
Bloomberg repels better Americans on the basis of the gun junk-lawsuit craziness alone; but by default he is better than Giuliani. And he, too, Lived Through Nine-Eleven.
“P.T. Barnum was right, though…”
Indeed he was, although I think we would disagree on just what the evidence for that is. Suffice to say, I’m amused that you (of all people) would invoke the man.
“Bloomberg repels better Americans on the basis of the gun junk-lawsuit craziness alone”
Would it be possible to get a translation of that comment? I’m not sure what you mean by the phrase, “better Americans” (although I suspect it simply refers to anyone who agrees with you).
As for Bloomberg running as a 3rd party candidate, I’m all for it. In fact I hope Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate too. Anything that shakes up the 2 party system is fine with me.
DLS: still crazy as ever.
As for Edwards: a lawyer who got rich standing up for little people against corporate monsters. That’s about the best use of a law degree any shyster can offer.
On the issue of abortion alone, few disaffected Republicans would vote for Bloomberg. (He’s staunchly pro-abortion). He would probably draw off more Dem votes, and so potentially become a spoiler, like Nader was for Gore in 2000. If Gore had gotten those Nader votes, he could very well now be completing an 8 year presidency. Now there’s a topic for alternative history buffs…
I’m not obliged to provide remedial education.
DLS: ‘I’m not obliged to provide remedial education.’
No one asked, but getting one is a different story.
DLS & Somebody should form a comedy team, called fear & Loathing, although which wd be which is up for debate.