While most of the media sets the odds and places bets on who will win which state in the Primaries, there is one element overlooking the whole process with a careful eye. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has let it leak once again that his participation in the 2008 presidential election is incumbent upon who he would be facing. As a possible independent candidate his support would come from the middle of the road and could only be successful if the other two candidates appealed to partisan factions.
Why is he watching the game before playing? My guess is that it’s because he doesn’t know how to lose. Michael Rubens Bloomberg grew up in the suburbs of Boston graduating from Johns Hopkins University with a B.S. in electrical engineering and an MBA from Harvard. He made his fortune selling financial information systems on Wall Street and has amassed an estimated 11 billion dollars. He has claimed he would use as much as one billion to run for office, if he does so. The reason he is feared by both parties is not only the green in his pockets but also his centrist positions on the issues.
Bloomberg is pro-choice, anti-death penalty and pro-gun control. He supports stem cell research, same sex marriage and has practical solutions for environmental problems. He wants to give citizenship to immigrants and add them to the tax roles. But he is also fiscally responsible earning him the respect of the business community. Many companies would be thrilled to have such a market friendly individual at the helm of the country. A good economy is a great motivator, not only for entrepreneurs but also for the voters.
If he has so much to offer, then why is he on the sidelines? The two top reasons are establishment and necessity. Bloomberg has stated that the biggest problem facing the nation is one of polarity. Being independent his centrist pragmatism would appeal across party and ideological lines uniting a large mainstream of citizens. However he would have to overcome deeply entrenched political interests who typically nudge party nominees towards lobbyist written policies. Their corrupting influence would mean very little to him especially if he only accepts one term as President.
As for the other candidates, those who appear to represent the current political establishment are Mitt Romney on the right and Hillary Clinton on the left. Neither has any crossover appeal and they are backed by the same operatives who pushed policy in the Bush and Clinton administrations. Some feel that if either were elected to the highest office in the land it would be akin to giving George W a third term. Just a new paint job on the same old broken down used car. Nothing would change and change is the keyword of the season.
The two candidates that might dissuade a Bloomberg run are John McCain and Barack Obama. These men can more easily garner support from the mainstream thus negating the need for a third party intervention. So the Mayor of New York is smartly checking the polls, biding his time and waiting for the primaries to unfold. These leading indicators will reveal whether or not his help will be needed, desired or accepted.
While it would be a historic event to have a third party candidate win the Presidency in the modern era, it would not be an easy ride. A handful of sexual harassment suits have plagued him for many years as well as allegations of misdemeanors concerning the operations of his company Bloomberg LP. In the private sector these can be handled discreetly but once they are used as political ammo they can be devastating to a President.
As for the electoral map, his handlers would have to decide if they can craft a winnable strategy fronted with a patriotic enough image to maintain or even exceed pubic expectations. This coming March we’ll know for sure if the mainstream majority has enough wiggle room for a third party candidate to reconnect the warring divide within our nation.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
I hate to be contrary, but your description of Bloomberg's issue positions does not by any stretch of the imagination make him a 'centrist'. As you describe him there's absolutely no reason for him to run as a Democrat except that he wants to bypass the primary process and save his billions for the general election.
If he were to enter the race the result would be to split the Democrat vote and pretty much guarantee a win to the Republican nominee.
Dave
2 - LonesomeThunderbolt
This describes pretty accurately how Bloomberg is probably sizing it up. If Hillary and Mitt (or Huckabee) are the nominees, there's a middle-ground opening for Bloomberg. But if it's Obama vs. McCain, they would absorb the centrist/independent vote. The X-factor is Bloomberg's choice of a runningmate. If it's Chuck Hagel, that fills out Bloomberg's blank slate on foreign policy and attracts GOP-leaning independents. While Bloomberg couldn't squeeze between Obama and McCain, Clinton vs. McCain could leave an opening. Bloomberg's liberal leanings on domestic issues draws Democratic voters, while Hagel's anti-war position allows the ticket to challenge McCain on foreign policy. It also doesn't hurt that Hagel is a decorated Vietnam combat veteran. And if the Dems go with Obama, Bloomberg could be the go-between for an Obama-Hagel "bipartisan" ticket. Wouldn't that contrast nicely with a McCain-Lieberman ticket!
3 - Dave Nalle
I really don't think there's anyone the democrats have left in the race who's far enough left to leave Bloomberg room to be in the middle. Just being a successful financier does NOT automatically make you more conservative.
Dave
4 - Baronius
"Bloomberg is pro-choice, anti-death penalty and pro-gun control. He supports stem cell research, same sex marriage and has practical solutions for environmental problems. He wants to give citizenship to immigrants and add them to the tax roles. But he is also fiscally responsible earning him the respect of the business community."
Centrist? Really?
No candidate runs on a platform of fiscal irresponsibility, so let's take that off the table for a moment. What remains is a bit to the left of the Democratic platform. There's no room for him between Clinton and Romney, because he's not between them. He's to the left of Clinton.
There's one other fact that no one ever mentions about Bloomberg: he's creepy. He's as creepy as lice. I know that's not the most important thing in the world, but it's hard to see success for an uncharismatic third party candidate.
5 - Dr Dreadful
I can see a lot of disillusioned Paulites hurrying to the Bloomberg banner after February 5th.
6 - Clavos
"I can see a lot of disillusioned Paulites hurrying to the Bloomberg banner after February 5th"
I dunno, Doc,
Bloomberg's pro choice, anti death penalty, pro gun control.
On his website, Paul unequivocally states he's pro-life, pro gun ownership. I can't find a reference to the death penalty, but I don't see how Bloomberg would appeal to the Paulies on the other two issues for sure.
7 - Dave Nalle
I believe Paul actually opposes the death penalty, but he's certainly not going to pass his voters on to Bloomberg. That just makes no sense at all. They'll split their votes between the socialists, the libertarians and a couple of other wacky third parties.
Dave
8 - Baronius
... and the Republican and Democratic nominees. Just because they favor Paul doesn't mean they're all nuts. Plenty of Paul's supporters are GOP faithful.
9 - khanj42
Reporting from the South.... you mention that Romney and Clinton are the leading canidates for "right and "left" wingers. I wouldn't underestimate Obama yet. He has huge support from lower-class black voters. I wonder if those votes will be counted this fall?