Posted on 08/21/2006 5:40:43 AM PDT by qlangley
Dateline: 16 August 2006
Mike Bloomberg is a popular mayor in a city the size of a state. It has more than twice the population of the state which Bill Clinton governed when he ran for the Presidency. A lifelong Democrat he switched to the Republicans in 2001, reportedly to avoid the crowded field in the mayoral primary. He is not beholden to any party or special interest. He funds his own campaigns and outspends his opponents by five or ten to one, without accepting a cent from lobbyists or the taxpayer.
Sources close to Bloomberg have suggested he might run for the Presidency, either as an independent or as a Democrat. My guess is that a serving Republican mayor would have little chance in the Democrat primaries, so let us concentrate on his appeal as an independent.
He is as rich as Ross Perot, who garnered almost 20% of the vote in 1992. He has clear advantages over Perot. Unlike Perot, he has real political experience. But it was part of Perot’s appeal that he could take none of the credit and none of the blame, for the state of the country
Perot also had no base, and this was a real problem. In terms of the popular vote, he outperformed George Wallace’s Dixiecrat run of 1968, but Wallace won five southern states, two with more than half the vote. Perot not only failed to win a single state, he was third in 48 states and in DC. Even his birthplace – Texarkana – was no use to him. If he had fought, say Bob Dole and John Kerry, perhaps Texas and Arkansas would have accepted him as a favorite son, but in 1992 both states were spoken for.
Bloomberg has a base. He is a regular fixture on the TV screens of New York City and its commuter belt, taking in most of the voters in the tristate area. To fund a campaign himself would probably cost him $200 million – more than three times what Perot paid, but he is good for it. Forbes estimates his wealth at around five billion.
Talk of a Bloomberg candidacy makes the main parties nervous, which cannot be a bad thing. His policies are centrist, which in New York has made him a Republican. Liberal Republicans are the only ones that can carry the city, whereas the Democrats of the city lean far to the left. Nationwide his centrist approach could undermine both the parties, as well as pulling in voters who would otherwise abstain.
Bloomberg would not need to do as well as Perot to affect the outcome of the election. With just 10% of the vote, and perhaps double that in the tristate area, his impact would be huge. With 15-20% nationwide he could seriously hope to carry NY, NJ and CT.
Republicans fear that if the party chooses a hardline conservative, Bloomberg will take votes from them. Of course this is most likely to happen in northeastern states which don’t vote Republican anyway, but he could take a small but critical slice in the swing states too. Sources close to Hillary Clinton have their own fears. Bloomberg could put into play three states that any Democrat needs to regard as solid to have the slightest chance of winning. His $200 million ticket could give us all some excitement.
Quentin Langley is editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net an academic at the University of Cardiff and is a columnist with Campaigns & Elections. This article was first published in the Common Sense series for Lake Champlain Weekly.
Bloomberg is a RINO, and not deservinmg of anything but scorn from those he has, and continues to, betray.
YIKES!!
Anyone who thinks that Bloomberg has a "base" outside of the Upper East Side of Manhattan or the Hamptons is smoking copious amounts of rock cocaine.
>>Anyone who thinks that Bloomberg has a "base" outside of the Upper East Side of Manhattan or the Hamptons is smoking copious amounts of rock cocaine.
That he has a base simply means his support is concentrated in particular areas, unlike, say, Perot's which was very evenly spread. Nader had a base in 2000, garnering significantly more votes on the West Coast than the East. I suspect if the election had not looked so close this trend would have been even more marked.
On the question of rock cocaine, however, I bow to your evidently superior knowledge of its effects on people's thinking skills.
I understand that - my point is that his "base" is numerically miniscule - he could not carry even New York against a Democratic nominee.
On the question of rock cocaine, however, I bow to your evidently superior knowledge of its effects on people's thinking skills.
You learn disturbing things when you spend six years on Chicago's South Side.
If we were fighting a War on Tobacco, Bloomberg would be a good choice. But we're not, and he ain't!
>>I understand that - my point is that his "base" is numerically miniscule - he could not carry even New York against a Democratic nominee.
You may be right. A lot depends on who the main parties choose as their candidates. I was merely suggesting that if he could get in the 10-15% bracket nationwide, and around double that in NY, NJ, and CT, all those states would be in play - potentially with three candiates running fairly even.
He would not have to actually win any of the three to put the frighteners on the Democrat. No Democrat with the slightest chance of winning nationwide would want to have to spend any time or money looking after those three states.
Kinda like the current guy who signed the repeal of the first and fourth.
WOW!I wish I had of said that!!
>>Bloomberg is so far left that he does not qualify to be a RINO. The man is a Democrat, anti second Amendment, pro-Affirmative Action, blowhard and pompous politician with presidential ambitions. His ambition is well beyond his capabilities.
I think I agree with you on all of that. (I should mention that my title was deliberately provocative. As you will have spotted in the article itself, I am not actually endorsing Bloomberg).
But having ambition beyond his capabilities does not mean he cannot have a significant impact on the election. His abilities VASTLY exceed Ross Perot's, and he is broadly sane and stable too.
More than anything, I am an electoral geek. I love elections. If Bloomberg runs he will make the whole thing more fun.
>>I would never vote for him if he ran for dog catcher, let alone POTUS.
Many people feel the same. But then, this does not mean that an independent candidacy by Mike Bloomberg will not have a significant impact on the race. I think it very well could.
Not going to happen. Lacks Perot's "self-made" charm. Bloomingidiot is a regional phenomenon who only won because of a divided Democratic party.
>>Lacks Perot's "self-made" charm.
He also lack's Perot's belief that men in black helicopters tried to disrupt his daughter's wedding; Perot's complete lack of governmental experience and general weirdness.
>>Bloomingidiot is a regional phenomenon
Indeed. That is one of my key points. His impact on an eletion could be powerful for this exact reason. That is why Hillary Clinton is worried. Good.
Nope, not going to vote for him for ANYTHING EVER. But if he wins the WOT (War on Tobacco) I could possibly be persuaded trust him to clean out peep-show booths in an adult bookstore or guard a pile of garbage at the Staten Island dump.
I am sure many people on this site feel the same.
None of that undermines the main thread of my article which is that his participation in the election could easily prove decisive.
>>Bloomberg is so far left that he does not qualify to be a RINO. The man is a Democrat
He is apparently considering running as a Democrat, though I doubt he would gain much traction in the primaries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.