Will He, Won’t He, Can He?
June 20th, 2007

Not surprisingly, airwaves, editorial columns and the blogosphere have been abuzz with reaction to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s announcement yesterday that he was abandoning the Republican Party, wanted to remain unaffiliated and (do we detect a wink here?) is not running for president.
The Sun takes credit for much of this clamor, noting it began talking about a Bloomberg White House bid in February 2006 – only about a month after he took the oath for a second term. “People tended to snicker,” the paper says, adding “with each passing week the logic of a Bloomberg candidacy has grown clearer and the idea of it more exciting.”
The News also sees a presidential campaign ahead: “You couldn’t get a much clearer signal that Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a third-party run for president than he gave by switching his voter registration from Republican to undeclared.”
And the Washington Post writes, “Bloomberg has reportedly told those closest to him that he would spend as much as half a billion dollars if he ran for the presidency, while some reports have suggested that he could spend double that amount.” But the Post continues, “His advisers say he is likely to jump in only if a series of factors align properly: general dissatisfaction in the country, a willingness to vote for an independent, and the relative standing of the two candidates chosen by the major political parties.”
“I think it’s important for him to be on the national stage regardless of whether he runs,” Barnard College professor Esther Fuchs, a former Bloomberg adviser, told the Observer’s Josh Benson.
And if he does run? Well, with Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani (who must be wondering whether he really should have made those ads for Bloomberg after all) in the field, it could mean a trifecta for New York. “An all-New York smackdown for the keys to the White House?” salivates the New York Post. “Could it get any better?” “It would be like a Yankees-Mets World Series and a Jets-Giants Super Bowl rolled into one,” says Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post. “Talk about New York City in your face,” says Walter Shapiro in Salon. “About the only thing for sure is that the Second Avenue subway would be built.”
But what might it mean for us New Yorkers whose concerns are a bit less parochial (Iraq, anyone?) and for the rest of the country? ”It must be noted that Bloomberg has little national security experience, that third-party candidacies have a way of fizzling like sparklers on a rainy Fourth of July,” the News admits.
Despite the mayor’s RINO (Republican in name only image), his candidacy could hurt the GOP because, one consultant has said, “The market for billionaire businessmen is basically with soft Republican voters, and so he is likely to help the Democrats if he runs.”
“His first damage would be to the Democratic nominee” who could no longer assume that he or she would easily win big Democratic states such as New York and California, Ben Smith writes on Politico. But he continues, “Bloomberg would also compete in states that have gone Republican recently, notably Florida.” And then Smith indulges in the kind of thinking dear to political junkies and thriller writers everywhere – a deadlocked electorate. If Bloomberg won enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from getting an absolute, 270-vote majority, the election would be decided in the House of Representatives – which is under Democratic control.”
Dear A on Open Forum has a different take. Seeing Bloomberg as “more like a Democrat than a Republican,” the blogger writes, “If he ran for President, he would be the next Ralph Nader who stole votes from the Democrat.” Now, that would be a strange legacy
By Gail Robinson on June 20, 2007, 9:14 amIn category: Electoral Politics, Gotham City | 9 Comments »


June 20th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I recommend reading Jackie Salit’s “The Bloomberg Story” posted on my blog The Hankster for an inside take on the Mayor’s independence: “Actually, the record shows that Mike has become more conservative and less willing to go to bat for independents, the longer he has been in the political game. But, in the early days he took stands on behalf of independents in numerous situations.”
I applaud Mayor Bloomberg’s nonpartisanship, and we’ll see whether it’s more than a political ploy…
Nancy
June 20th, 2007 at 10:57 am
If Bloomberg’s presence sent the presidential election to the House of Representatives, it would be the Republicans who would prevail, since they still control the majority of state delegations. But after the 2008 election, that might no longer be the case. Neither party might have a majority of delegations, and a prolonged deadlock would allow the vice president, chosen by the Senate, to prevail.
As for the analogy to a Mets-Yankees World Series, there are really three baseball teams in New York: the Mets, the Yankees, and the Red Sox, who are partly owned by the New York Times. That makes an even better analogy. Bloomberg is from Massachusetts.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Who cares. Outside of NYC metro area he’s irrelevant.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:24 am
GORE-BLOOMBERG.
Well?
June 20th, 2007 at 11:25 am
GORE-BLOOMBERG 08
Well?
June 20th, 2007 at 11:33 am
In response to 3. GlennC7’s post. Given Bloomberg’s success in the business world and as a noted philanthropist, how is he irrelevant outside the NYC metro area? Couldn’t we apply your same argument to Giuliani? He was a NYC mayor, gained widespread notoriety after 9/11 and has since been in the spotlight as a result of his presidential bid. Pre-bid, how is Giuliani significantly different than Bloomberg? The argument can definitely be made that Bloomberg has been a more recognizable and popular figure than Giuliani was at any point pre-9/11.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Rudy Giuliani or Vampire?
January 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Run Mike Run
Michael Bloomberg for President
http://www.RunMikeRun.com
An informational website that contains statements by politicians from both parties, notable business leaders and others regarding a possible third-party run by Mike Bloomberg. It also contains some videos of interviews and others of Mike speaking on issues.
April 27th, 2011 at 6:39 am
Ýðîòèêà ïî òåëåôîíó ñî õîòÿùèõ áëîíäèíêàìè – BDSM ñåêñ ïî òåëåôîíó!