The Candidates
Featured Archives
With word that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made the decision to spent in upwards to $2 billion of his personal fortune in pursuit of an independent run for the White House, I thought I would take the opportunity to reprint my essay on why this would be one of the best things that could happen to the Republican Party in this cycle. This article was originally published on May 19th, 2007.-KWN
_______________________________________________________________________________________
New rumors of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s nascent independent White House bid caused much debate (and anxiety) in the right-leaning blogosphere this week.
Readers here and at other conservative sites such as Redstate expressed their dismay at the prospect, citing a recent Rasmussen poll which showed Bloomberg’s inclusion into the race causing a statistical tie between Hillary Clinton and her top Republican rivals, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, to turn into a nine-point lead.
I won’t spend any time debating the motives of Mayor Bloomberg in potentially wasting one-billion dollars of his amassed wealth in what any sane and intellectually mature adult realizes is an absolute hopeless endeavor (in what universe does he get to 270 electoral votes?) Although in my thoughts about it all, I can only come up with two. But that is a discussion for another time…
Allow me to make the case that a Bloomberg independent run is at worst, nothing for the GOP to be concerned about; and at best, a sort of deus ex machina that could serve to the save the skin of the GOP in 2008.
Who is Michael Bloomberg?
Mayor Bloomberg is an incredibly successful and enormously wealthy businessman (he was ranked as the 44th richest American and 142nd richest person in the world by Forbes magazine) who amassed his fortune with the sale of financial information terminals by the company he founded Bloomberg L.P. He holds a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Johns Hopkins University, and later went on to receive an MBA from the Harvard Business School.
Mayor Bloomberg is a renowned philanthropist (he has donated nearly $300 million to his alma mater John Hopkins alone). His personal charitable contributions have been calculated to place them in the top ten of all philanthropic endeavors in the entire United States.
But the crucial question here is: what do Americans outside of NYC know of Michael Bloomberg? The answer, according to polling, is almost nothing. So the most important factor to consider in debating the impact of his entry into the 2008 race is what American voters will make of him when his political positions are well-known.
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…
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Assuming Bloomberg steps in post Feb 5th, who would he choose as a running mate? Would he go for the fringes and select a Kucinich or Ron Paul. Does he go for a centrist governor like Richardson or Huckabee to appeal to middle America? Who else is on his shortlist?
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I think Bloomberg is going to wait to see who the GOP nominates. If we nominate Romney or Huckabee, then he will try to fill the gap in the middle. With over a billion dollars to spend, he will buy the image of Ross Perot.
If Bloomberg runs, he will definitely be the Ross Perot of 08.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
TM,
Humor me for a moment on the whole Perot thing.
Go to Dave Leip’s site and select the 1992 election.
Go to all of the states that we would reasonably have expected Bush to defeat Bill Clinton in, but ended up losing.
Add Perot’s votes to Bush’s.
Tell me what you find.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Imagine a Dem-Rep-Bloomberg-Paul election.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:12 pm
“a centrist governor like Richardson or Huckabee” How on earth does “quarantine those with AIDS” fit into “centrist”?
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Kavon,
It looks like Bush would have won if he had the Ross Perot vote in 1992.
For example:
Iowa
Clinton 43.29%
Bush %37.27
Perot %18.71
If Bush had all of the Perot votes:
Bush 55.98%
Clinton 43.29%
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:21 pm
TM,
Go state by state and try to get Bush to 270 electoral votes.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Didn’t Bloomberg and McCain recently do lunch together — and I think Obama did as well. I see McCain running as a Veep to Bloomberg should he fail to win the Republican primary.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
#8,
Riiiight…
Nothing like dropping by for some holiday slander, eh RB?
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I’m not worried about Bloomberg. I’m worried about our party picking one of two bad options:
1) Remain stuck in the 1990’s
2) Become strident on everything and sell social conservatives out
If either type of candidate is nominated than we lose in 2008.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Nusrat,
Nice to see you back around here lately
.
Best wishes to you this Christmas/Holiday Season my friend!
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Kavon,
I’m not sure what you are getting at, it appears that Bush would have won at least 18 additional states, if he had received all of the Ross Perot vote.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Wooo-aaahh, the dude’s a mess. Looks like he wants to be Hillary’s VP, she will be pleased to have someone even farther left? than she is.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Nusrat,
Centrist is the wrong word for Huckabee. He is more of a frankenstein of fiscal liberalism and social conservatism, whereas Richardson is the opposite with fiscal cred and social liberalism. In my mind, Bloomberg could choose either to shore up support from whatever side he felt he needed more votes from.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
If we nominate Romney or Huckabee, then he will try to fill the gap in the middle.”
Are you serious? I’ll have to re-read this post again but it looks to me like this guys way too left to begin “to fill the gap in the middle.”
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Kavon,
I’ve been sitting back watching the whole “Woe is us if Bloomberg runs” chorus going on. I, like you, have believed that he will do more damage to the Dem candidate than whoever we nominate.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
cwpete,
Most people will think of Bloomberg as a former Republican.
More importantly, with a billion dollars to spend he will be able to easily buy the image of Ross Perot.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
The danger of Bloomberg is that he will take a portion of the “presidential CEO” vote from a Romney or a part of the “competent government manager” vote from a Giuliani or Huckabee. Face it, the polls show some discontent with the GOP candidates so it would not take much to get some of these voters to jump ship. That is especially true if there is a sense that the GOP would lose anyway. In that sense he would have to opposite impact of Nader. He got a lot of dem votes because they assumed Gore would win anyway.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Axel G.
I have to agree with you. I think that the GOP is toast if Bloomberg runs.
Our only hope is to keep him out of the race.
I think he will run, if there is a gap in the middle to fill.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Kavon #9, just expressing my honest opinion…
TM #17, which is exactly why I think he wants and needs the credible of a strong running mate — he would love to have McCain by his side — much stronger ticket than say a Chuck Hagel (anti war). If McCain wants it (Veep isn’t exactly President, but look at the influence Cheney has had in this adminstration) it’s his. The Straight talk express may be back in the form of a Bloomberg/McCain ticket.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
It is amazing how much Huckabee’s path to the White House resembles that of Bill Clinton…except that Huckabee can win without a “Perot” in the race. Still…..
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Bloomberg can be a potent candidate if the Huckster is the nominee. But Huck will also get a chance to do a rerun of his “I’m the christian candidate” ads. Huck should tell Chuck Norris to pay Bloomberg a visit.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
The vital Southern bloc of states will not abandon Huckabee for a Northeastern New York City Mayor…current or former (they wont go for a Northeastern Gov of Mass, either, by the way.)
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
#18 Axel, If Mitt gets the GOP nod that is probably the biggest reason for McCain to join Bloomberg. He despises Mitt and wouldn’t it be sweet justice for him to be the running mate of someone with even more Wall Street cred than Romney? Just another conspiracy theory but I’m not going to be suprised if McCain’s political ambition causes him to switch party affiliation for the sake of uniting America and taking down the special interests. A formidable combination the two of them would make.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
#23 Paul, Um.. Georgia and SC seem to be supporting Mitt pretty well right now — I’d wait a bit before making that bold of a prediction
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Michael Bloomberg on the Issues
Abortion
Reproductive choice is a fundamental human right. (May 2006)
Budget & Economy
Balanced $6B deficit with higher property taxes. (Oct 2005)
Civil Rights
Backs same-sex marriage. (Mar 2007)
Corporations
Wooed Goldman Sachs to NYC with $1.65 billion in tax breaks. (Oct 2005)
Crime
Mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes. (Dec 2006)
Lock them up and throw away key, but no death penalty. (Dec 2005)
Drugs
You bet I smoked pot; and I enjoyed it. (Apr 2002)
NYPD will continue to vigorously enforce drug laws. (Apr 2002)
Education
Replaced school board with direct mayoral control. (May 2007)
No social promotion; more after-school. (May 2007)
Strengthened cell-phone ban in city schools. (May 2007)
Focus on increasing high school graduation rates. (Apr 2007)
Energy & Oil
Calls for building wind farms and nuclear power plants, raising automobile fuel standards and creating market-driven incentives to produce cleaner energy. Released environmental blueprint for New York City, PlaNYC, which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030.(May 2007)
Environment
Creative housing: deck over highways & build brownfields. (Apr 2007)
Clean up 7,600 acres of brownfields; build more parks. (Apr 2007)
Environmental justice: clean soot in poor neighborhoods. (Apr 2007)
$8 fee to enter NYC by car, to encourage mass transit. (Apr 2007)
Foreign Policy
Four trips abroad in first four months of 2007. (Apr 2007)
Has been receiving foreign policy briefing sessions on a wide variety of topics, conducted by Nancy Soderberg, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and a Clinton Administration foreign policy adviser, who has been described as “Bloomberg’s Condi.” (November 2007)
Held at least three lunch meetings with officials from England’s Independence Party. (November 2007)
Free Trade
Staunchly for free trade and against protectionism. (Mar 2007)
Government Reform
All presidential candidates should declare an issues matrix. (May 2007)
Gun Control
Founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. (May 2007)
It’s not about gun control, it’s about crime control. (Apr 2007)
Sued New York City gun dealers to control guns. (Mar 2007)
Mike Bloomberg on Health Care
Prioritize city healthcare on HIV, diabetes & hypertension. (May 2007)
Banned trans fats in NYC restaurants. (Apr 2007)
Smoking ban was a crusade of his mayoral administration. (Oct 2005)
Homeland Security
Use DNA and fingerprint technology for worker ID database. (May 2006)
Immigration
Normalize status of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants. (May 2007)
Border controls fight natural forces of supply and demand. (May 2007)
Jobs
NYC jobs program caused lowest unemployment rate since 1976. (Apr 2007)
Principles & Values
Offered independent ticket by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R, NE). (May 2007)
Will decide in early ‘08 on run as self-financed independent. (Mar 2007)
Acquisition of money inextricably tied to hard work. (Oct 2005)
Charitable giving based on “Where can I make a difference?”. (Oct 2005)
Tax Reform
Raised property taxes 18% to pay off budget deficit. (Mar 2007)
War & Peace
On Iraq: “It’s not a local issue, and I don’t have anything to say.” (August 2005)
Nobody wants war to continue, but what happens next? (May 2007)
On Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia: Columbia University was free to invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, but “personally, I wouldn’t go to listen to him – I don’t care about what he says.”
Welfare & Poverty
Opportunity NYC: cash transfer to break cycle of poverty. (Apr 2007)
Instituted $7.5B municipal affordable housing plan. (Mar 2007)
Launched three initiatives to improve access to food support programs and promote healthy lifestyles in lower income communities: the creation of a public-private partnership that was awarded a $500K grant from the Kellogg Foundation to encourage healthful eating and more active lifestyles; the implementation of technology that will enable more community-based organizations to enroll families in the Food Stamp program; and the addition of School Meals programs and other food benefits for low-income children and families to ACCESS NYC’s online screening tool. (May 2007)
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
So here are our choices for the General Election:
A Woman
A Jew
A Mormon
or
An African American
A Jew
A Mormon
Nice bit of diversity and it should be interesting how it turns out…
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Kavon, one thing we need to recall is that there is a very high dissatisfaction rate among the members of GOP party. Our officals in DC and elsewhere overall failed to uphold the flame of what Republican Party represents. We only need to go back to 2006 to see the instance of this. I believe that people who are not satisfied with GOP and who cannot tolerate Clinton, if she does win Democratic nomination, will be happy to vote for any third party, regardless of who it is, simply to teach both parties the lesson. We are already seeing this with Huckabee. These supporters have lost their mind. There is nothing psycholoically to stop the supporters outside of primary voters from either sides to go for Bloomberg.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
RB (#20) I think you are right in that McCain will have quite an influence if he ends up as VP with Bloomberg, since comparing to Bloomberg, he really do know the inside gearwork that is DC. He can fly around Bloomberg without him realizing it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Paul S (#23) We have quite a few southern states where Huckabee (or any candidate for this matter) does not have as solid lead as we had in the past. That is assuming Democrats have nothing on Huckabee. But seeing how they are remarkable silent on anything related to Huckabee, when they historically are very, very active with trying to destroy the strongest candidates within Republican Party, so their own nominee could have an chance to win over somewhat weaker candidate. This should give you a pause.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Kavon,
The same to you!
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
McCain would not be anyone’s VP, much less that of a 3d party candidate. Its like some of you want annual loyalty oaths.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“The truth regarding Mayor Bloomberg politically is that he is a man of the American Left”
No, that is ridiculous.
The “left” is not the same thing as “liberal”.
Bloomberg is a liberal in the classic sense of the word. Socially liberal, and a believer in regulated (but not too much) free-market capitalism and a government that deals with the inequalities that such a system engenders. How on earth can you consider a life-long Wall Street guy, who starts his own corporation dealing with the dissemination of market information, to be a man of the “left”.
A union leader, now that would be a man of the left.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
#32 Axel, this isn’t about loyalty — it’s about retaining power and influence. Joe Lieberman couldn’t get the Democratic party nod so he switched and won anyway. If Republicans don’t accept McCain, tell me why you think he will stay loyal after they also rejected him 8 years ago. Why would McCain cozie up with Bloomberg who is now independent? Why would McCain ask for Lieberman’s endorsement? Who knows what will happen — we do know that Bloomberg and McCain have been close friends for a long time…
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
RB, how does McCain refusing to run as John Kerry’s running mate in 2004 fit into your scenario?
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
#35 Mark, here is what might make it more logical now
1) McCain wasn’t running for POTUS in 2004 — (he was waiting for another chance in 2008)
2) Bloomberg is not a Democrat (like Kerry) and he used to be a Republican (acceptable)
3) In McCain’s mind, Hillary’s or Romney’s experience to led a nation during a time of war is unacceptable compared with his own.
The Bloomberg/McCain ticket is still way on the backburner, if McCain’s bid fails and if Hillary and Romney get the other nominations.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
The fallacy is the belief that every single vote that Perot got would have went to both candidates equally. They would not have. The data we have from the 1992 shows that Perot was able to draw almost evenly from both Clinton and Bush among folks who would have voted anyways.
Perot was the most successful 3rd party candidate since TR because he was able to bring out new people to the polls that would not have had he not been in the race (this is why Ron Paul will do so well when he goes 3rd party).
You would have to give Bush the VAST majority of the Perot votes in 10 states (including some southern states that bordered Arkansas and some NE states like New Jersey) to get Bush to 270 electoral votes.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Kavon in 1994 Perot voters voted overwhelmingly for Republicans.
I wonder if Perot voters were predominantly rightish voters even if many wouldn’t go for Bush.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
When I look at Bloomberg’s stances on the issues, all I see is “Giuliani” written over and over again. Only he had to clean up the budget deficit that Giuliani left him.
Heh.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Kavon is absolutely right about the Perot factor, in fact moreso than he even realizes.
There was a very large exit poll done on Election Day 1992 – 15,000 voters.
Key finding:
“In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.”
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 am
Kavon:
In regards to Perot, I think he made enough of a difference in the dynamics of the race that looking at an electoral map is futile.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
If you are interested in a Mike Bloomberg run, get involved, join the draft effort at http://www.uniteformike.com Bloomberg and Perot are two entirely different entities. Mike has experience in government as well as philanthropy and he is not some crazy Texan with pie charts. Also, lets not forget that Perot did not choose the best running mate.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
[...] @ Race42008, they have a lively discussion about Mike having a bit of the Perot Factor. I couldn’t disagree more… I’ll write something later today about that, in the meantime, here is their debate. [...]
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Here is why Perot and Bloomberg are completely different
1) Experience
2) Ideology
3) Running Mate
For a complete list check this out
http://www.uniteformike.com/2007/12/23/draft-mike-bloomberg-president/3-reasons-why-bloomberg-is-not-perot-or-nader-and-will-not-spoil-the-election/
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
It seems to me that a stronger independent ticket would be McCain/Bloomberg. Would Bloomberg still be able to spend his own $ if he is number 2?