Zogby: Think Bloomberg's a total long shot? Think again

[wyldwolf]

Now that Mayor Bloomberg has scuttled his membership in the GOP and an independent bid for the presidency looks more likely, the burning question on the minds of New Yorkers is: Can this guy really win? My polling shows his chances are promising.

It comes down to good timing, really. After more than a decade of harsh wrangling, likely voters tell me they are tired of the vicious partisanship. In a national telephone poll last month, 80% said it was "very important" that the next President be a person who can unite the country, and 82% said the same about the need for a competent manager. Bloomberg wins on both counts.

Another 58% said it was "very important" that the next President be able to cross party lines to work with political opponents, while just 42% said it was "very important" that he or she reflect the values of their own political party. As a Democrat-turned-Republican-turning-independent, Bloomberg fits the bill.

Put another way, the middle ground of the political electorate is expanding, the fringes are contracting, and Bloomberg could be sitting in the sweet spot.

Of course, how an independent candidate would perform depends on who the major party candidates are, but Bloomberg is buoyed by the fact that those raging nomination battles usually push the eventual winners to the political extremes.

Add this to the mix: In an exhaustingly drawn-out campaign, Bloomberg can essentially remain above the fray for many more months while the Democrats and Republicans slug it out for their respective nominations. If and when he finally steps in, he could be seen as a real breath of fresh air. In a society that increasingly puts value on what's new and exciting, we should not underestimate this factor.

On the electoral map, a Bloomberg candidacy puts almost every state into play. Suddenly, the required winning percentage in each is reduced from 50% plus one to just 34%.

An important side note: Contrary to conventional wisdom, my polling shows he would likely take more votes from the Democrat than the Republican. Those who consider themselves part of that growing "moderate" political class are 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans, and 38% independents.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/06/21/2007-06-21_think_mikes_a_total_long_shot_think_agai.html

[patricia92243]

1. Oh, joy to the world (sarcastically) Just what we need - someone to take Democratic votes. I assume

Nader will stick his ore in the water and take even MORE of our votes. Then we will have another Republican prez.

Patricia gnashes her teeth in frustration :(

[papau]

2. Blommberg draws from Democrats and Independents - not from GOP - and thereby lets GOP win -This t

time the GOP might not have to pay Nader to run like they did in 2000, if Bloomberg will finance such an effort by himself.

[Capn Sunshine]

20. totally disagree

I think he'll draw the disaffected R's , more than the po'd Dems. There are actuallymore of them.

Just like Perot actually drew from Clinton as well as Bush you might be surprised what a billion will buy.

Look for "Citizen Kane" to make new appearances on the TV in Fall '08.

Hey, maybe he'll get more than 20% and get an electoral vote. Maybe five.

[EV_Ares]

3. In Missouri, with Bloomberg in the race Hillary leads Rudy. Without

Bloomberg, Rudy leads Hillary so he takes votes from Rudy evidently there.

[HereSince1628]

4. Interesting that Zogby sees a growing moderate class, I don't see it around here.

[wyldwolf]

5. it was very evident in the midterms. Polling going back several years confirms it

[SaveElmer]

6. Some good points...but

I just don't see it. We get this kind of speculation anytime someone seemingly viable runs as an independent. Besides the systemic obstacles, Bloomberg would have to prove himself as a candidate. Right now he can be a cipher, channeling what people hope for in a candidate. But once he is forced to take positions etc, some of that luster is lost...his foreign policy experience is zero for example.


Plus, I actually don't think he is gonna run.

[gratuitous]

7. Think pollsters aren't delusional? Think again

Every election cycle we go through this, and every election cycle it doesn't pan out again. Oooh! A third party candidate! Brokered conventions! Pluralities! The whole thing thrown into the House of Representatives! A deadlock of historic moment, and you're here to see it.

Bloomberg isn't going to make a bird's pecker worth of difference. Write it down. Repeat it. Believe it. And when the political reporter types start hyperventilating about a Bloomberg independent run, point and laugh. They're trying to sell interest in the campaign to the very, very lowest common denominator, the instinct to view the whole thing as a horse race. Anything to avoid discussing real issues and the true impact of governmental policies on large swaths of the population.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. I don't think he'd win, but he could f-up the electoral vote.

I think he could pull down a state or two, probably NY if Hillary or Rudy isn't the nominee. I think it'd make it very difficult for any candidate to reach 270 electoral votes, in which case we'd have a VERY interesting scenario in the House of Representatives, and THANK GOD we control that now.

[alfredo]

9. Bloomberg doesn't have 50 state organizations like the D's and R's.

He will have to build from scratch.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Uh ... I think you mean .......

He will have to {build} buy from scratch.

[alfredo]

13. Yep, you're right. Here in our county, the Republicans buy canvassers

they don't have enough people to volunteer to do the dirty work.

[dionysus]

10. hell i know you like him, he's a republican.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Read and Heed

This is the same conclusion at which I arrived by intuition (not terribly reliable, but its all I got).

Bloomberg is, in my view way different than any other 3rd party type in our lifetimes.

People tend to draw parallels between him and Perot. I suspect that's because both were rich and somehow seen as republican/conservative types. The fact is, Perot was stingy nut job. He wrote as few checks as humanly possible when he ran/quit/ran. Whenever he spoke he came across the as the egotistical, narcissistic asshole he is. Bloomerg has shown a willingness to write big check after big check (check his philanthropic record and his self-financed mayoral campaign record).

Perot came across as a loon.

Bloomberg comes across as honest, concerned, and maybe even a bit wonky.

I'm sure not pushing the guy. I am, however, advising taking him VERY seriously. He will hurt OUR side if he runs.

[Tellurian]

17. Right! nm

[Tellurian]

14. Bloomy is like a spoiled child looking for attention..

He Aced himself out of the loop when he joined the Republicans. Sure, it all worked for him when it was the thing to do...now, the Republicans are considered the barbarians of the Planet and the Dems are about to come into their own.

So, where's Bloomy? He's standing on the outside looking in... When you've got his kind of money, you can and you will throw a hissy-fit and destroy everything in your apartment out of frustration...(not that he's done that..yet) He wants to be on the right side of things when the dust settles and maintain his status as an important, relevant financier/businessman.. abounding with friends asking his advise. (Is that too much to ask? For a man that has so much disposable income? hello?)

If he going to sell the Bloomberg News (pretending I could)I'd buy that first, after the papers are signed, invite him to be on the Team and as a deal breaker, if things go the way they're supposed to give him a cabinet position related to finance. Heck, put him in charge of the FED!.. How could he possibly resist a position relished by the Rothschild's?

The bottom line is... the guy is frustrated. Turn that frustration into our own strength...

[Alexander]

15. I'll believe he's a threat when I read a poll mentioning HIM.

For example, the polls showing Gore tied with Obama already and 40-50% of Iowa Democrats saying they'd like to see Gore enter the race makes me think he might have a shot.

Until now I have not seen any such poll regarding Bloomberg.

[Tellurian]

16. From what I've read..

He's presumed to declare one way or another, next May. My advise, give him what he wants...take him in as a faux "silent partner". Why worry about him, when he can be thought of as an asset to the cause? He's a businessman. Party affiliations are a nebulous commodity in his mind. Take him in..before someone else does.

[TwilightGardener]

18. Unlikely to win, but not that much of a long shot either. He's not Perot--

it drives me nuts when people compare them. It's a lazy comparison--they're both rich. So what? Bloomberg is sane (a BIG difference), and has political experience--he was actually elected to something. If he runs, I would take him seriously, whereas I laughed at Perot. And Unity '08 is getting on the ballot in all 50 states--they've been courting Bloomberg like crazy, and I suspect that's why he switched to an "I", among other reasons. He just needs to be a different affiliation than whomever he runs with, according to their rules--so now he can run with either an R or a D. He will be the cornerstone of their enterprise, I'll bet.

[spooky3]

19. Huh?

"On the electoral map, a Bloomberg candidacy puts almost every state into play. Suddenly, the required winning percentage in each is reduced from 50% plus one to just 34%."

That presumes without basis that Bloomberg will attract nearly a third of the vote.

For example, in State X, a winner would still have to get nearly 50% plus 1, and in State Y a bit less:

State X
Winner 50%
2nd place 49%
Bloomberg 1%

State Y
Winner 48% plus 1
2nd place 48% minus 1
Bloomberg 4%

etc.

[Stop Cornyn]

21. Bloomberg's no long shot. What's the new word for slimmer odds than a long shot? It's "a Bloomberg."

[calteacherguy]

22. It's going to be VERY, VERY difficult for a Dem to win the White House in 08'

No matter who are nominee is. We need to be thinking strategically about who actually would have the best chance of winning the general election:

What we need:

1. A candidate who, like Bloomberg, is perceived to at least some degree being "above the fray" of partisan politics. Someone people see as capable of uniting the country.

2. Someone with a proven track record. Leadership and executive level experience...this could be in the public, private sector, or both.

3. Charisma always helps.

[Tellurian]

23. What- you think the American people are stupid? The Dems have a lock on the WH..

The strongest of the candidates will WIN the nomination.

So far, the only candidate demonstrating strength, fortitude and a do or die commitment to winning the nom is Hillary!

She's in it to WIN! And this is just the beginning!

Her guns are drawn and loaded for the inevitable battle with Republicans.

[calteacherguy]

24. Wow..."the Dems have a lock on the White House"

What an incredible example of naivete.

Bookmarked for reference in Oct. 08'.