Independent Mayor

Michael Bloomberg, evidently seeking to further open the door to a 2008 campaign bid, is formally disaffiliating himself from the GOP. I wonder whether Bloomberg's partisan wanderings -- from D to R to I -- would hurt him in a presidential bid. On the one hand, voters hate "opportunist." On the other hand, they love "independence." Which Bloomberg is displaying here kind of depends on how you squint at things.

Speaking purely as someone who's going to have a professional obligation to write about the presidential campaign whether or not I get bored with it, I think the world is a more interesting place if Bloomberg runs simply because the map gets more complicated. One has to assume, however, that his choice will depend in part on the matchups. If, say, Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee it's a bit hard to see what political space Bloomberg's supposed to occupy.

Comments

Re "I wonder whether Bloomberg's partisan wanderings -- from D to R to I -- would hurt him in a presidential bid. On the one hand, voters hate "opportunist." "
----------
Ha ha ha ha. It is the political parties THEMSELVES who are "opportunist" -- who constantly betray the very principles for which they claim to be fighting.

By the time Bush leaves office, our federal debt will be approaching $10 Trillion. Over $7 Trillion of which was incurred under the personal signatures of "fiscal conservatives" Ronald Reagan, George Bush the Elder, and George Bush the Lesser.

Or look at our current Democratic Congress.

Posted by Don Williams | June 20, 2007 8:48 AM

Bloomberg's political space, regardless of his party affiliation, is that designated for the "non-insane Republican." Any of the leading GOP candidates would leave that space wide open, that we can be sure of.

Posted by Steve | June 20, 2007 8:48 AM

This is just Broder's bipartisan non-partisan third party bullshit scam. I can't see any good coming from it -- it seems that it will split the anti-Bush vote. A Bush-loyalist candidate will start with a hard core of about 30% and could win with 5% from the remaining 70%, if the third party and the Democrats split even.

The premise of all this is that Bush is bad, but certainly we can't let the Democrats win! Because they're, you know, just so awful. McGovern, Jimmy Hoffa, Chappaquiddick, Monica Lewinsky, Iran hostage crisis. Awful.

The way the media work it's going to be hard for any particular Democrat to project a winning image, even though most Americans prefer the general Democratic point of view. But Republican (and "centrist") candidates will be buffed up to seem like God. (Fred Thompson is actually a old, horrible-looking man with a sagging face, but the media have are trying to convince people that he's a younger Paul Newman, and smells good too.)

Posted by John Emerson | June 20, 2007 8:51 AM

If he does run, just thinking about political positioning, it would behoove us to nominate Obama. To win we would need to show that ideology matters more than competence, and a BIG way of showing that is too draw a contrast with the assorted millionaires and billionaires who populate presidential politics.

Posted by Marshall | June 20, 2007 8:59 AM

I'm sure Bloomberg knows he will never be president. But he seems sincerely dedicated to a kind of technocrat centrism, akin to whatever it is Lieberman believes in, and I think the best way to understand his inchoate campaign is to regard it as a kind of force field pulling candidates on both sides, both Dems and Republicans, towards the moderate middle. He does this not by winning any election but by being a threat: if, say, the Democratic contender looks to socialist or radical to him, he positions himself as a big city liberal, and so threatens to take away blue states like NY or NJ or at least throw them to the Republicans. Conversely, if the Republican turns out to be a real red-meat wingnut, he emphasizes his business credentials and tax-cutting, and threatens to make the difference in swing states like Florida or Ohio by throwing them to the Democrats. He can credibly paint himself either way, and either way, he forces the main party candidates to be more moderate. That's his game, in a nutshell.

Posted by lampwick | June 20, 2007 9:02 AM

'Republican' in NYC (and, to some degree, NY) politics has a long history of not being the same as 'Republican' nationally-- think Javits, Lindsay, Rockefeller, even Guiliani. An actual Republican in NYC wouldn't get any votes, and everybody knows this.

Posted by MattF | June 20, 2007 9:09 AM

Bloomberg will occupy as much political space as he can buy, and that could be quite a lot.

Posted by Glenn | June 20, 2007 9:10 AM

If, say, Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee it's a bit hard to see what political space Bloomberg's supposed to occupy.

Even more interesting, what if it's Romney? Romney would essentially be running against the 2002 version of himself.

Posted by right | June 20, 2007 9:13 AM

Are you trying to imply Rudy and Bloomie are similar in policy, temperment or ability? Not so.

A prime example, Rudy’s entire campaign is based on how he’ll protect us from evil-doers who are right now plotting to KILL US ALL! Meanwhile Bloomberg, responding to the media fueled fear from the latest dubious terrorist threat, noted that people obsessing about this sort of thing really need to get a life.

Posted by hankest | June 20, 2007 9:13 AM

When Bloomberg won reelection in 2005, and the presidential talk was just starting up, I remember thinking he'd be the best possible choice for the job--professional, non-partisan, a man who would draw his $0.01 a year salary and go into work every day and get things done.

Having put a little more thought into it, and seen the Gulliani campaign's attempt to turn a mayor into a president, I can see that being a mayor, especially the Mayor of New York, is almost uniquely disqualifying for the job of President of the United States. Mayors like Bloomberg and Gulliani don't have to face a formidable political opposition (with the City Council being filled with political preeners awaiting their shot at the mayors chair, and the City Democratic Party shot through with identity politics and other dysfunctions). They can cavort around the city without much scolding from the New York press (thankfully). And the City is small enough that many of its problems that can at least be approached through a strong government effort. Whenever I hear Bloomberg talk, it always seems that he thinks of the US as just a big version of New York, and that it will be easy (and appropriate) to ban smoking nationwide.

Bloomberg's been a great mayor, but he'll never be president. The political space left occupied for short, unmarried, Jewish mayors of New York is not worth having.

Posted by Ben | June 20, 2007 9:16 AM

I don't agree that Joe Lieberman is part of the technocratic centrist caucus (all three of them). Lieberman is one of the most ideological politicians on the modern scene.

Posted by Marshall | June 20, 2007 9:20 AM

Bloomberg is an old fool. No one is gonna vote for a rich asshole who no longer represents America. The same goes for that Austrian loser, we need REAL Americans, not products of the media, or in Bloomie's case, producers of the media.

Posted by Kolb | June 20, 2007 9:30 AM

I have commented on this before but a little history lesson is worth repeating as all of the commentators so far are apparently too young to remember what happened in 1992.

In the 1992 election, Ross Perot got 19% of the vote as an independent. This was accomplished even though he had never run for public office before, had no experience in handling issues, and was unable to attract a vice presidential running mate who at least appeared to be presidential material.

In contrast, Bloomberg has run and twice been elected to a public office. In doing so, he has now had considerable experience in handling issues. He also may be able to attract a viable vice presidential running mate (e.g. Chuck Hagel). Based on Bloombergs' advantages vis a vis Perot, and given the dissatisfaction of the voting public with the choices currently before them, it is not at all inconceivable that Bloomberg could top Perots' total by plenty, possibly by enough to carry several states. Although winning would be a long shot, remember Jesse Ventura who, through a sterling performance in three way debates with the major party candidates, won the Governorship of Minnesota.

Posted by SLC | June 20, 2007 9:44 AM

Bloomberg is an elitist schmuck who is a firm believer in the nanny-state and is dedicated to making my City safe for rich white yipster a-holes while simulateously pandering to the non-working poor. He cares not about the working folks of this City and he is virulently anti-labor. Furthermore he knows as much about foreign policy as I know about fly-fishing.

Posted by laborlibert | June 20, 2007 9:54 AM

Bloomberg and Lieberman have virtually nothing in common.

Bloomberg is a NY repub, which as someone noted, is not like being a Republican at all. He would be the second NY mayor to switch parties while in office (Lindsay went from R to D in 1971), which shows that party affiliation in NY is not the deal it is elsewhere. So Bloomberg is a Republican who is really a Democrat, but since the Democratic slot on the mayoralty ticket was filled by Mark Green, Bloomberg ran as a Republican as a matter of convenience.

So now he is an independent, which is probably about where he belongs in NY politics. And the public will bite down on an independent candidate for president, and even more so if he runs with an antiwar Republican--Chuck Hagel, I guess.

Be a big mistake to right off this very competent man--not much of an ideologue in my book--who also happens to be a multi-billionaire, based on a dubious comparison with Joe L. (I have officially forgiven him today for bringing the RNC convention to NY.)

I'm leaving alone for the present the question of whether a Jewish candidate has a snowball's chance of being elected president today.

Posted by nrglaw | June 20, 2007 10:03 AM

Bloomberg is a competent executive, good on gun control, but there's reason to doubt his commitment on foreign policy since he helped Joe Lieberman hold onto his seat last year. That kind of "Independent" may turn out to be as bad as the Neo-Cons:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/06/bloomberg-iffy-independent.html

Posted by Robert Stein | June 20, 2007 10:04 AM

I'm fairly put off by the Bloomberg candidacy. While I think he's been a competent leader, the very fact that he's considering a run reveals that he is an arrogant, delusional man who believes what he hears in booming out of the New York media echo chamber.

I'm also fairly repelled by the centrist-MSM narrative that the total failure of the Republican Party's policies and leaders somehow means this is now the right time for magical-pony centrist movement, rather than, say, the resurgence of the Democratic Party.

Electorally speaking, though, this is perfectly welcome news. Any way you slice it, it's far more likely to hurt Republicans than Democrats.

Posted by Philly | June 20, 2007 10:06 AM

I find it more difficult than some to guess which way this will split the vote. Bloomberg could appeal to the non-crazy GOP vote if Giuliani were nominated, or he could appeal to the Hillary-phobic Dem vote.

Naturally, I hope the former. I can't think what he's up to here, other than jockeying for a Veep slot if the election *isn't* Rudy v. Hillary (since you can't have 2 NYers on the same ticket).

He's surely *not* planning to spend millions of his own money on a useless cause -- rich people generally do not become rich that way, unless they inherited it -- so I have to think he's got some kind of plan. He doesn't seem to be vain enough to be doing it for his ego.

Posted by Anderson | June 20, 2007 10:07 AM

Anderson, you make a good point, but I would think even Hillary-phobic Dems understand the importance of having our party in control. Bloomberg would have to appoint a mix of centrist Democrats and Republicans to his cabinet and the federal judiciary, and that should be reason enough to oppose him.

Posted by Philly | June 20, 2007 10:17 AM

If Bloomberg manages to take NY state in a 3-way race, is nominee Hillary in big electoral college trouble? Not that I am into conspiracies, but the Bloomberg goal might be to get the Republican elected.

My worst nightmare would be three New Yorkers running.

Posted by bob mcmanus | June 20, 2007 11:00 AM

Even the merest appearance of a conspiracy theory disqualifies you, Bob. No cookie.

Posted by John Emerson | June 20, 2007 11:05 AM

See, *my* conspiracy theory was that Bloomberg might be doing this for *Hillary* ... no cookie for me, either.

Posted by Anderson | June 20, 2007 2:38 PM

If, say, Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee it's a bit hard to see what political space Bloomberg's supposed to occupy.

Oddly enough, this morning I read (sorry, don't recall where) that he'd get a kick out of challenging the previous Hizzoner, whereas he doesn't think a run against McCain would be any fun at all. (No word on his inclination re Ol' Fred, and I seriously doubt he or any Dem is going to have to run against Romney.) Which is not to say he'd run against any of them; these are just his druthers . . .

Posted by penalcolony | June 21, 2007 1:03 PM

"Electorally speaking, though, this is perfectly welcome news. Any way you slice it, it's far more likely to hurt Republicans than Democrats."

Are you kidding me Philly.

A Bloomberg candidacy will take enough votes from the Democratic nominee to elect a Republican. Bloomberg is an alleged 'liberal Democrat' who switched parties to get a shot in the NYC mayoral race. Republicans aren't going to vote for a Jewish New Yorker who favors gun control, is pro-choice, etc. But many Democratic leaning independents and the quadrennial 3rd party loonies who would have voted Democratic in 2008 as they did in 2004, would support Bloomberg. And don't think for a minute that the Republican candidate won't make an issue of the 'real Mike Bloomberg.'

If Bloomberg runs he will guarantee a Republican win.

Bloomberg has no chance of actually winning the race and he must know that and he must also know that he will insure a Republican victory. And that may just be the point of such a candidacy.

For a lot of reasons I question Bloomberg's Democratic bonafides in his life before his 1st NYC mayoral race. After he became mayor he gave millions to the Republican party. He didn't have to do that, especially in light of the fact that the Republicans he was supporting were screwing his own city. If Bloomberg is at heart a Democrat why did he give himself so enthusiastically to electing Bush is 2004? Christ, even Lincoln Chaffee dissed Bush in '04.

But Bloomberg is perceived as a liberal and perception is, most unfortunately, a determining factor in American politics. That perception will steal votes from the Democratic nominee.

A Bloomberg candidacy would be an unmitigated catastrophe.

Posted by cal1942 | June 22, 2007 2:53 AM