NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has changed his party affiliation from Republican to unaffiliated, making some folks think he’s going to launch a bid for the presidency.
Strategists say he could mount a third-party campaign by stressing that he is a two-term mayor in a Democratic city and that he built his reputation as a political independent, social moderate and fiscal conservative.
Throughout his 5 1/2 years as mayor, Bloomberg has often been at odds with his party and Bush. He supports gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control and stem cell research, and raised property taxes to help solve a fiscal crisis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
We all know how poorly third party candidates fare. A couple of things:
- Would you consider voting for him?
- Which party do you think stands to gain the most from a Bloomberg run?
In theory? Yes. Given the current crop of excellent Democratic candidates? Nope.
Posted by MB | Tuesday, June 19, 2007, 9:39 pmIll be honest, if a certain democrat or two gets the nomination, and bloomberg is running, he will probably have my vote…
Posted by Nova Democrat | Tuesday, June 19, 2007, 11:26 pmI would have considered voting for him in 2004, due to significant problems with both candidates. I don’t think I will this time around. I think the Republicans would gain the most from a Bloomberg run. He has enough of his own money to wage a strong campaign, and I think he would be most likely to win large “Blue” states like NY (obviously) and CA.
Posted by Lumen | Tuesday, June 19, 2007, 11:33 pmLumen, what world do you live in?
Posted by MB | Wednesday, June 20, 2007, 12:08 amLMAO MB.
Bloomberg cuts into New York against both Hillary and Rudy, which makes it a little harder to predict that state (especially since those two aren’t necessarily going to be the nominees). In the other states, again assuming a New York Trifecta (boy would that suck), I think Bloomberg would cut into Rudy’s share of the independent vote. If the Republicans end up with a social conservative, the degree to which that will happen will be greater. I will admit that there’s the potential that he could be potentially appealing to the “Anybody but Hillary…unless that anybody is a Republican” crowd – she needs to do something about her negatives within the next year – but Bloomberg isn’t going to make a dent with her labor base, women base or minority voters. Ralph Nader he is not.
Posted by anonymous | Wednesday, June 20, 2007, 8:41 amCorrect you are, Anon. Bloomberg would not just be a Nader-esque spoiler. He spent $73 million of his own money to become mayor. If Bloomberg so desires, he could quite easily outspend both major party candidates even without receiving any donations. That makes the real question not how he effects the popular vote, but how he shifts the Electoral College. Bloomberg could only ever be considered a Republican in New York, and even there for only 6 of his 65 years. His social views will likely preclude him from drawing much support in most of the “Red” states, but not in “Blue” states that frequently elect socially liberal Republicans to statewide office (CA, MD, MA, NY, NJ, WA, etc.). A Bloomberg candidacy might damage the GOP if Giuliani gets the nomination, but otherwise Bloomberg will undoubtedly be bad for Democrats.
Posted by Lumen | Wednesday, June 20, 2007, 1:31 pmLumen, the part where people think you’re high is the part where you think Bloomberg would win ANY states if he were to run, let alone California. I said he would cut into different bases differently, but he’s not going to be appealing to any electorate enough to win a plurality of the popular vote in any state.
Posted by anonymous | Wednesday, June 20, 2007, 4:35 pmSince Bloomberg is not even campaigning nationally right now, and nobody really knows what he would do in a Presidential campaign, I don’t think you can be so certain what he would or wouldn’t do. He has more money and better looks than Ross Perot, and Bloomberg probably won’t take the whole summer of ’08 off the campaign trail if he decides to run. It therefore seems at least plausible that he could fare much better than Perot in ’92.
Posted by Lumen | Wednesday, June 20, 2007, 4:59 pmWhy shouldn’t he? Everyone else is. BTW: Is this the most crowded field of candidates that we have ever had?
Posted by anonymous | Thursday, June 21, 2007, 12:33 pmI think Bloomberg brings an interesting perspective to the presidential race, not far from that of Bill Richardson, BTW. The bigger issue to me is how bad he wants to be president. He would have to self-finance the race and he’d have to get going soon in order to be a real viable option.
My own sense is that due to his money, he has the ability to play spoiler. I don’t think he has the ability to win.
Posted by vjp | Thursday, June 21, 2007, 12:52 pmViv, I know you like Richardson. Would you consider voting for Bloomberg if one of the other Democrats won the nomination?
Posted by Lumen | Friday, June 22, 2007, 8:28 pmNo. As I said, I don’t think he can win.
Posted by vjp | Friday, June 22, 2007, 9:00 pmI think Bloomberg is capable to win when rudy was mayor he made New York a wealthy city in debt but when bloomberg came he raised then for debt to wealth. He should be great for econemy
Posted by repblican | Wednesday, January 9, 2008, 9:34 pm