Bloomberg's Billions

I have to admit that the side of me that follows politics sort of as a spectator sport can't help but want to see Michael Bloomber launch his much-rumored independent presidential campaign. A three-way race would have more wide upen contours and a much more dynamic electoral map. John Kerry got 40 percent of the vote in Mississippi in 2004 and the state's 37 percent black so you've got to figure Bloomberg couldn't push that down very far. Maybe he'd take enough GOP votes to render Democrats competitive in the deep south.

On the other hand, the larger impact would almost certainly be to siphon votes off in the northeast and turn those solidly blue states competitive. I'm not a fan of third party concepts in general, and what makes them appealing from a spectator point-of-view is a big part of the problem with them -- when you have more than two candidates in the race, the American electoral system starts delivering some truly odd results. The combination of first past the post with the electoral college means that, in principle, you could become president while finishing third out of three in the popular vote. The other thing is that a solid billionaire challenge could be exactly the thing to light a fire under the assess of incumbent politicians and get them interested in political reform. Bloomberg has over $5.5 billion. He could comfortably live until the end of his days with a mere $1 billion in savings, and spend $4.5 billion on a presidential campaign, at which point all bets would be off. The established party candidates need to consider themselves lucky that he seems to be contemplating something more along the lines of "only" $500 million.

Comments

There's something about the idea of actually having a Jewish New York Wall Street billionaire running the country I find perversely appealing--take that, antisemites!

Posted by William Burns | March 26, 2007 9:03 AM

The first amendment, in its majestic equality, allows rich and poor alike to launch presidential campaigns, fund 'think' tanks, and own the New Republic.

Posted by otto | March 26, 2007 9:08 AM

The main effect of the Electoral College is to increase minority power. Otherwise who would care about Cubans in Florida or Jews in New York or Utahns or Hawaiians in general?

More campaign finance regulation = more Michael Huffingtons/Ross Perots.

Less campaign finance regulation = more Eugene McCarthys.

As for Bloomberg...

Bloomberg told voters that they should judge him on education: If it doesn't get better they should kick him out. It didn't but voters didn't care.

Of course, fixing education is just not that hard a concept.

Posted by Nurse Bloomberg's Nurse | March 26, 2007 9:37 AM

"could be exactly the thing to light a fire under the assess of incumbent politicians and get them interested in political reform."

That's a terrifying thought, given that incumbant politicians tend to regard anything that makes life harder for challengers as a "reform". Much more campaign "reform", and we might as well save money by only holding elections when the incumbant feels like retiring.

There's some chance that genuine reforms which make life harder on incumbants rather than challengers, can be achieved by ballot initiative. But by statute? Incumbants legislating on the subject don't so much sucumb to the conflict of interest, as they passionately embrace it.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | March 26, 2007 9:42 AM

Consider the following scenario.

Given the closeness of the last two elections, a Bloomberg campaign could conceivably win several states, enough to throw the election into the House of Representatives. Since it is unlikely that any party will, after the 2008 election control a majority of the state house delegations, the vice president who would be elected by the Senate would serve as the acting president for the full 4 year term. Thus, control of the Senate after the 2008 election could be more important then the presidential election.

Posted by SLC | March 26, 2007 9:59 AM

"Bloomberg told voters that they should judge him on education: If it doesn't get better they should kick him out. It didn't but voters didn't care."

Bloomberg was foolish for saying that. I can't think of any example of a public school system dominated by black and Hispanic students producing encouraging results. As long as no one is willing to acknowledge that there are, on average, significant differences in academic aptitude among blacks and Hispanics (the disparity applies even when limiting the comparison to students with affluent and educated parents) versus whites and Asians, liberals like Bloomberg will keep tilting at windmills.

Posted by Fred | March 26, 2007 10:02 AM

NBN, the main effect is to increase the power of certain states. Utahns and Hawaiians have no sway in general elections, because Utah will always vote Republican and Hawaii will always vote Democratic. (No major party nominee has campaigned in Hawaii since 1960.)

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 26, 2007 10:03 AM

SLC,

Wouldn't the election be decided by the sitting Congress in that scenario?

Since it is unlikely that any party will, after the 2008 election control a majority of the state house delegations

Why would this be unlikely? Dems have a majority today (26-20, I believe).

Posted by right | March 26, 2007 10:27 AM

Short of cloning Schwarzenegger so that he'd have a 'Born in the USA' version, is there any other possible serious third-party candidate?

Posted by MattF | March 26, 2007 10:30 AM

Since it is unlikely that any party will, after the 2008 election control a majority of the state house delegations, the vice president who would be elected by the Senate would serve as the acting president for the full 4 year term.

Your House election scenario could happen, but the above statement seems very confused. In the House, each state delegation would get one vote. In the event that a state's representatives are split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and they could not agree on a candidate, that state would simply forfeit its vote. You would need a majority of 26 states to agree, but it's hard to imagine that it would fail to elect a President.

NBN, the main effect is to increase the power of certain states. Utahns and Hawaiians have no sway in general elections, because Utah will always vote Republican and Hawaii will always vote Democratic.

It depends on how you construe "power". Hawaii and Utah are allowed their constitutionally determined number of electoral votes. That they reliably vote one way or another doesn't mean they don't have any power or influence. If they want more "attention" from candidates pre-election, all they have to do is stop voting so reliably. "Always" is a bit of a stretch. I don't have to keep courting a girl if she's already agreed to marry me, but I do have to keep her from divorcing me.

Posted by Homer | March 26, 2007 10:33 AM

Well, I certainly hope that anyone excited about Bloomberg will take a moment to read the Times' lead story yesterday about how the NYPD -- under Bloomberg, this wasn't some Giuliani carryover -- fanned out across the country to infiltrate groups planning on protesting the GOP convention. Just like the bad old days that were supposedly over here. Add to that the shocking mistreatment of protesters at the convention itself, and I think you start to see that Bloomberg is every bit -- well, damn near close, anyway -- the authoritarian despot that Giuliani was. I would hope that after 8 years of Bush, people would be looking for a President that doesn't shit all over the constitution, but of course I'm usually disappointed when I think that.

Posted by Glenn | March 26, 2007 10:43 AM

I'd consider voting for him if it looked like the Democratic candidate was sure to lose. He would likely get savaged in the press, but he's one damn good technocrat.

Posted by Ross | March 26, 2007 10:49 AM

Re right on

As I understand it, the electoral votes would be counted by the new incoming congress. In the event that no candidate got 269 electoral votes, only then would the House vote, as Mr. right on indicated, 1 vote per state, to elect the president. I had not realized that the Democrats had a majority in 26 delegations in the current congress. This is somewhat unusual, as I don't believe that the Republicans had a majority in 26 delegations since they took over the House in 1994. Usually, there are enough delegations evenly split to deny a majority in 26 to either party. Of course, the possibility of the 3rd party candidate doing some horse trading and then directing his electors to vote for one of the 2 major party candidates can not be overlooked.

Posted by SLC | March 26, 2007 11:11 AM

Incumbent lawmakers are already plenty worried about self-financed candidates, and I don't think one trying to effect a presidential election would have much success.

The issue is that, short of major public-financing initiatives, there isn't much you can do that isn't hugely unfair to someone. Significantly limiting private money simply gives a huge advantage to incumbents. Not limiting private money gives a huge advantage to rich people and rich causes.

What moderates this is that money doesn't really help THAT much. As you note, $500 million just really isn't that much to spend on any national advertising campaign. And it's not significantly higher because the diminishing returns hit rapidly and there's not much else you can do with the money at a certain point.

I'd be happy to see measures that make the money even less useful though. Networks having to give even advertising time, or universal voter requirements making the whole "get out your base, depress your opponent's base" less feasible and important.

Posted by Tony V | March 26, 2007 12:07 PM

40% Kerry, 37% black deserves a lot more analysis.

It's generally clear just how important low black turnout is to ensuring Republican dominance of the South, but I'd never such simple and clear numbers to illustrate it like that before. That's one illustration, but I think there's plenty more, and likely a good book to be written.

Posted by Anonymous | March 26, 2007 1:24 PM

Part of me wonders if this is just a way to get his name out there and scare the sitting parties enough to get promised by at least one of the candidates the job as Secretary of the Treasury or something to get him to back out.

Posted by Reality Man | March 26, 2007 1:36 PM

A few questions: I agree with Ross that Bloomberg is a technocrat but why does Ross also claim: "He would likely get savaged in the press"? I don't live in NYC, but hasn't the NY press already looked in his closet?
He can be blunt and can come across as cold. But I like that in a way too. I also like a candidate who does not have to solicit Barbara Streisand, anyone at Dreamworks, Jerry Falwell or James Dobson for campaign contributions.

BTW doesn't he also anonymously fund the NY school system when it inevitably has a budget shortfall?

Posted by Anubisocrates | March 26, 2007 1:38 PM

How much TV time could a $4.5bn campaign buy? Every prime-time commercial between now and November? (Which makes me wonder why, say, Sumner Redstone couldn't jump into the race, and limit his paid TV time to CBS/Viacom affiliates, thus essentially paying himself.)

This is somewhat unusual, as I don't believe that the Republicans had a majority in 26 delegations since they took over the House in 1994.

There are some interesting anomalies, particularly in the states with small delegations: Dems have the at-large representatives in VT, DE but also both Dakotas; took both seats in NH, hold both seats in ME and RI.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 26, 2007 2:08 PM

If Bloomberg really wants to make a difference how about setting up a 3.5 Billion endowment for the NY school system? He'd still have a bil or so to live on and certainlya better us eof his wealth than some losing vanity campaign that appeals to the Socially liberal, fiscally Consevrative Hawkish faction that seems to only exist in the press corp.

Posted by Eric | March 26, 2007 4:21 PM

Actually the representative from DE (Michael Castle) is a Republican.

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 26, 2007 4:43 PM

He is already funding (through various foundations) a lot of NYC's health infrastructive for poor people. There's only so much that charitable giving can do, though, and I expect Bloomberg knows that as well as anyone.

The press would probably look into Bloomberg's private life a bit; he's got a girlfriend, and I don't know if he's ever been married. I'd be much more interested in hearing the behind-the-scenes wrangling with Giuliani, Pataki, and the RNC gargoyles. Bloomberg should catch some serious trouble over the recent NYPD spying story.

Posted by Jackmormon | March 26, 2007 4:56 PM

Eric:

"If Bloomberg really wants to make a difference how about setting up a 3.5 Billion endowment for the NY school system?"

Because lack of money isn't the problem. The problem is the majority of black and Hispanic kids don't have aptitude to succeed academically. If you think otherwise, then feel free to build a successful company from scratch, make a few billion dollars in the process and then donate that money to the NY schools system yourself.

Typical liberal quick to blow someone else's money on quixotic quests.

Posted by Fred | March 26, 2007 6:12 PM

Fred,

You do realize I was mostly joking and pointing out the folly of wasting millions on a 3rd party run?

As for the rest of your racist rants take it over to Steve Sailor's site, I'm sure it would fit right in...

Posted by Eric | March 26, 2007 6:25 PM

Can I make it clear that I'm not Fred (and he's not Freddie)? Jesus.

Posted by Freddie | March 26, 2007 6:35 PM

My scenario could get even hairier. Suppose that Bloomberg won enough states to throw the election into the House, the new House did not have 26 delegations favoring either party, and the new Senate was split 50/50. Since Cheney would still be vice president until 1/20/09, he could break the tie in the Senate to elect a GOP vice president who, due to the stalemate in the House would serve as acting president for 4 years! How about them apples!

Posted by SLC | March 26, 2007 7:29 PM

I think you're better off thinking about Bloomberg as a disaster for Democrats, period. Except for the obvious case of Wallace, the South hasn't given the time of day to third-party candidates (e.g., Anderson, Perot), and I doubt they'll make an exception for a socially-liberal New York Jew.

If Bloomberg runs, his candidacy would be a better-funded version of the Anderson candidacy, peeling off otherwise Democratic voters in the suburbs of Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, the Bay Area, and the Puget Sound. If he were to get 20-25% of the vote, I'll bet he wouldn't crack 10% in the South, and wouldn't get 5% in Mississippi or South Carolina. Perot did better than that, but remember he was pitching a form of economic populism.

Posted by Don K | March 26, 2007 9:00 PM