Will Bloomberg Run for President?

[oberliner]

From the article:

"Did Mike Bloomberg become a multi-billionaire by lowering his sights? I don't think so," says a friend of the popular second-term mayor. "Why would he want to be governor? If he runs for anything, it'll be the White House."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1620821,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

What do folks think? Will he run? If he does run, who will it benefit?

[Alexander]

1. It would be 1968 all over again - Bloomberg would be the new Wallace.

Granted, Bloomberg - a social liberal and economic moderate - is about 180 degrees from Wallace - an economic populist and social right-winger, but he'd split the 2008 vote regardless.

We have seen so far, in both 1968 and 2008:

-An unpopular war largely started by the incumbents
-A split in both parties regarding the war
-A 60-year old Governor Romney running
-The party out of power winning big in the off-year election (1966, 2006)
-A large anti-establishment faction in the Democratic party, opposing a particular candidate (Johnson/Humphrey, Clinton)
-A Class 1 New York senator running who isn't from New York (Kennedy, Clinton)
-Pro-war retreads from 8 years ago (Humphrey, McCain)
-Dramatic changes in the presidential primary rules

And we may yet see:

-A former vice-president entering the race and winning
-A third-party candidate taking votes from both parties

[oberliner]

2. Does Guiliani = Nixon in this scenario?

Fred Thompson = Ronald Reagan perhaps?

[Alexander]

4. No, the parties are switched. (R)s gave us war, and Gore is the new Nixon.

As loathe as I am to compare a distinguished and capable vice-president to that bigoted, paranoid worm Nixon, Gore would certainly find lots of parallels if he ran again.

Back then, it was Johnson and the hawkish Democrats who escalated Vietnam, with the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" later found to be a crock of shit. John and later Bobby Kennedy only wanted advisers in Vietnam, not boots on the ground.

So when I say "this is like 1968", the roles of the parties are now reversed, with Republicans starting the war and the Democrats making vague promises to end it.

I don't know who Giuliani parallels right now. I don't think he'll win the nomination, and if the Republicans do vote for a pro-war candidate, I think they'll go with either McCain (completing the McCain-Humphrey parallel) or Romney, assuming Romney doesn't make a huge "gaffe" like his father did (looking back, his dad was exactly right with the "brainwashing" comment).

Hagel would be the Republicans' McCarthy - an anti-war Senator appealing to the intellectuals in the party. Though Hagel voted for IWR (like McCarthy voted for Tonkin), he's been a constant critic and would avoid being associated with the unpopular war.

If the race turned into Gore (D) vs. McCain (R) vs. Bloomberg (I), it would mirror 1968 almost perfectly. And just like in 1968, the former vice-president would win. :-)

[IndianaGreen]

3. Bloomberg is going to take the plunge, and he is not Ross Perot

Joe Lieberman will come out in support of Bloomberg, with the possible addition of Chuck Hagel.

[Alexander]

7. Bloomberg would need more endorsements than that.

Typically third-party candidates need to pull a few high-profile people from both sides in order to be taken seriously.

Hence, John Anderson got as high as 30% in some of the polls in 1980, but when he couldn't find a better-known running mate other than obscure governor Patrick Lucey, his candidacy was doomed.

Bloomberg would need more than the support of a DINO-turned-fake-"Indy" and a right-wing Republican against the war to win.

I still see Hagel running as a Republican. He's conservative on everything else except the war. Why would he jump ship? No other party would have a place for him.

[democrat2thecore]

11. John Anderson didn't have billions of dollars in the bank

Bloomberg, like Perot, can self-finance a campaign. The analogy with John Anderson breaks down there. The Bloomberg threat to the victory of a Democrat and a Democratic administration concerns me greatly. I have said this in other posts, not so much for Bloomberg being president, but the "Unity administration" you know he would bring along. With that said, I believe (as many others do, btw) that a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket would actually have a chance of WINNING. Not just a good race, but WINNING. People keep saying the electoral college is "stacked against that." How? The popular vote winner takes the state - Republican, Democrat or Independent. An incredibly well-funded campaign can win the popular vote in ANY state that a Republican or Democrat can. It's about the campaign $$$, television and people being fed up. It's a REAL threat to a Democratic administration come January of 2009. Trust me!

edit for spelling

[Alexander]

13. As I said, Hagel's a Republican through and through. He won't jump.

It is far more likely Hagel will win the Republican nomination than run as an Independent.

In fact, my money is on him winning the Republican nomination, because almost all the other candidates are pro-war and Hagel is not (but he is a rock-ribbed red-state right-winger with only 1 wife and gobs of money). With the September "deadline", it seems the Republican party is moving more in Hagel's direction.

Fear Bloomberg all you want, but the electoral college IS stacked against him. Many states are already either solidly Democratic or Republican - he'd need to pull off 270 electoral votes in the swing states, and there simply aren't enough to get 270 electoral votes.

Bloomberg has high approval ratings as mayor, but people will be looking for a candidate strong on foreign policy. Bloomberg isn't that candidate, and money can't buy foreign policy experience.

I think he'll run, and maybe take a couple of states like Wallace did, but he won't win. There are simply too many states where one party dominates.

I'm more afraid of Hagel winning the Republican nomination and Bloomberg running as an Indy or "Unity". The two men could agree not to attack each other and gang up on the Democrat instead. I suspect Kerry and Edwards had a similar agreement - I noticed they didn't attack each other much in the 2004 primaries.

[democrat2thecore]

15. State-By-State polls of Ross Perot in 1992 showed he could have won

He led the opinion polls AND the state by state polls when he dropped out. Billions can buy a lot of TV advertising (30-minutes in length in Perot's case). Those "solid states" you talk about have dwindled with each election. To the contrary, even a lot of red state are Red with 52-48 and Blue states the same or closer. Your "solid states" are there all right, but there's PLENTY of states that money could swing an Indy win and 270 electoral votes.

[Alexander]

16. So which states would Bloomberg win?

"He led the opinion polls AND the state by state polls when he dropped out. Billions can buy a lot of TV advertising (30-minutes in length in Perot's case)."

So? Bloomberg has sexual harassment skeletons in his closet, and most of the people who'd consider voting for him are left-of-center and probably rooting for the Democrat. Leading the polls at one point means nothing, otherwise we'd boast about the great accomplishments of Presidents Hart and Dukakis.

"Those "solid states" you talk about have dwindled with each election. To the contrary, even a lot of red state are Red with 52-48 and Blue states the same or closer. Your "solid states" are there all right, but there's PLENTY of states that money could swing an Indy win and 270 electoral votes."

I knew it would take some effort to debunk this idea, so I was hoping not to, but here goes.

Let's assume Bloomberg will win every state with a "52-48" difference or less, as you put it. That means if the D-to-R breakdown is similar to 2004, he would win the following states:

Iowa
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

For a total of 67 electoral votes - not nearly enough to win. He can throw the election into Congress like this, but since Congress is Democratic (at least the House, which is what really matters), they'll pick the Democrat.

Let's go even further than your suggestion, and assume Bloomberg will win any state with a 2004 "55-45" difference or less. That means he'll win:

Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Iowa
Maine (assuming he wins every congressional district)
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

For a total of 199 electoral votes. A plurality, but not the 270 needed to win - and I highly doubt a Democratic Congress will vote for Mike Bloomberg over their own nominee.

He'd need California and Illinois, in addition to all those states above, to break the magic 270 barrier - states where Bush didn't break 45%, and a Democrat has won every election since the 1988 landslide. I also don't see Virginians or New Hampshire residents voting for this guy in droves.

In addition, most of the running mate options he has available would alienate large segments of voters. Hagel, who opposes abortion rights, would not sit well with social liberals. Lieberman would be opposed by both the left and the right.

I'd be more worried about him swinging the election one way or the other, depending on who gets nominated. As I warned about before, a non-aggression agreement with Hagel could pay off huge dividends for Hagel if he finds the Republicans like him enough to nominate him a year from now.

[Alexander]

14. As I said, Hagel's a Republican through and through. He won't jump.

It is far more likely Hagel will win the Republican nomination than run as an Independent.

In fact, my money is on him winning the Republican nomination, because almost all the other candidates are pro-war and Hagel is not (but he is a rock-ribbed red-state right-winger with only 1 wife and gobs of money). With the September "deadline", it seems the Republican party is moving more in Hagel's direction.

Fear Bloomberg all you want, but the electoral college IS stacked against him. Many states are already either solidly Democratic or Republican - he'd need to pull off 270 electoral votes in the swing states, and there simply aren't enough to get 270 electoral votes.

Bloomberg has high approval ratings as mayor, but people will be looking for a candidate strong on foreign policy. Bloomberg isn't that candidate, and money can't buy foreign policy experience.

I think he'll run, and maybe take a couple of states like Wallace did, but he won't win. There are simply too many states where one party dominates.

I'm more afraid of Hagel winning the Republican nomination and Bloomberg running as an Indy or "Unity". The two men could agree not to attack each other and gang up on the Democrat instead. I suspect Kerry and Edwards had a similar agreement - I noticed they didn't attack each other much in the 2004 primaries.

[Colobo]

5. For some morbid reason

I'm hoping he does.

[Czolgosz]

6. No. Is he setting up the organization necessary to get on the ballots in all 50 states? If not, he's

not running. From what I've seen, he's making no effort to set up the 50 state organization to get the signatures necessary to run in all 50 states.

[TwilightGardener]

8. He could hire people pretty quickly to do that. Or he could go Unity '08.

[Czolgosz]

9. Maybe he could, but he's not. If he was running, this project would be underway already and it isn't

[TwilightGardener]

10. I've read somewhere that he's got time--he doesn't have to undergo the primaries--

it's an internet world, anyway--I imagine supporters (if there ARE any) could be mobilized pretty quickly. Daunting, but far from impossible.

[democrat2thecore]

12. PLENTY of time

Again, the Bloomberg dollars buy petitioners in all fifty states - just like Perot. There would be no primary for him. He has about 14 months from now in most states - that's more than enough time.