New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has left the Republican Party to become a registered independent, fueling more speculation about the possibility of the billionaire entering the 2008 Presidential campaign as an independent or third party candidate. 1010 WINS reports:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has left the Republican party and registered as unaffiliated with any political party, a move certain to heighten presidential speculation to a fever pitch, despite his denials that he's running.
The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the Republican party in 2001 for his first mayoral run, said the change in his voter registration doesn't mean he is running for president.Bloomberg said his plans for the future haven't changed, adding "I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city."
Read the entire report at the link above. Bloomberg could easily finance his own campaign, after the fashion of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, but lacks the wide appeal. I can see him running, but the only state he might win would be New York if Hillary and Rudy are the major party nominees.
It's not completely clear who he might hurt the most. He certainly wouldn't draw many conservative votes, since he is a rather liberal "Republican" - he only switched parties because he knew he would have no chance in the Democratic Mayoral primary in NYC, and wanted to capitalize on the popularity of outgoing Republican Mayor Giuliani.
Where Perot had strong issues upon which to run - the deficit was spiking and becoming a matter of concern for average citizens, we were in the middle of a national debate over free trade and NAFTA, and we had only begun to recover from a mild recession that had middle-class families worried about our economic future. Perot had plans for each of these things - some were better than others, but you knew where he stood, and he was in the public eye making his argument for each of them.
Bloomberg stands for nothing, excepting perhaps "arrogant narcissism." While he won't be a threat to match Perot's 19% of 1992 or even his 7% in 1996, he could make a run at Ralph Nader's 2.7% in 2000, and almost assuredly would beat Ron Paul's 0.4% of 1988.
I doubt he would be a major factor in the race outside of New York, barring changes in the lay of the land.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, General politics, Strategy
Tags: Bloomberg, party affiliation, presidential campaign
Comments (11)
The race just got a whole l... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Paul Hamilton | June 19, 2007 8:00 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
The race just got a whole lot more interesting...
1. Posted by Paul Hamilton | June 19, 2007 8:00 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on June 19, 2007 20:00
2. Posted by superdestroyer | June 19, 2007 8:31 PM | Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
A Bloomberg independent run will turn an almost certain Democratic victory into a rout for the Democrats. The Republican candiate could get as low as 30% of the vote and may get so few votes in New England that the Republicans will not even be on the ballot in 2012.
2. Posted by superdestroyer | June 19, 2007 8:31 PM |
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
Posted on June 19, 2007 20:31
3. Posted by Jim Addison | June 19, 2007 9:12 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Actually, if he affects anyone, it is far more likely to be the Democratic nominee than the Republican - unless the Republicans nominate Thompson or Gingrich, and Thompson probably wouldn't lose too much. Most Republican and Republican-leaning independents wouldn't dream of voting for him. So WHO does he take from the Republicans?
From the Democrats, OTOH, he might make an appealing alternative to those who just can't stand Hillary, or those who recognize that Obama and Edwards don't have the experience for the job.
3. Posted by Jim Addison | June 19, 2007 9:12 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 19, 2007 21:12
4. Posted by Paul Hamilton | June 19, 2007 9:22 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
And, Jim, both Bloomberg and Hagel are strongly anti-war, so if the Dem candidate is wishy-washy on the issue, which would describe all three frontrunners, a Bloomberg candidacy could easily take away more Dem votes than Pub.
4. Posted by Paul Hamilton | June 19, 2007 9:22 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on June 19, 2007 21:22
5. Posted by J.R. | June 20, 2007 8:47 AM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Big deal, this guy was a registered Democrat before 2001. He was the definition of RINO and now no longer has to carry that label. If anyone thinks this guy steals votes from the Republican candidate outside of maybe NYC, they are delusional.
Look at his CV (taken from BDP at Ankle Biting Pundits): more taxes, less freedom (smoking and trans-fat bans), supports economy derailing environmental regulations, favors gun control, favors gay marriage, favors amnesty for illegal immigrants, and he was against John Roberts for the supreme court. If you had to place those political idealogies under a D or an R, you certainly wouldn't have picked Bloombery to be an R.
Good riddance.
5. Posted by J.R. | June 20, 2007 8:47 AM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on June 20, 2007 08:47
6. Posted by Falze | June 20, 2007 10:33 AM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
"excepting perhaps "arrogant narcissism." "
That's not stopping Edwards from running.
6. Posted by Falze | June 20, 2007 10:33 AM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on June 20, 2007 10:33
7. Posted by Matt | June 20, 2007 10:42 AM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Bloomberg would make a good candidate. At least he has finally had the integrity to disassociate himself from a party that he only supported long enough to be electe Mayor of NYC. His appeal would be to moderate democrats and left leaning independents and the heards of RINO out-there. His candidacy would be damaging to Hillary, Obama and Guilani.
7. Posted by Matt | June 20, 2007 10:42 AM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on June 20, 2007 10:42
8. Posted by Glenn Koons | June 20, 2007 2:44 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Now exactly what has Bloomberg done in NYC to gain voter respect and votes? What policies, issues, laws did he support that would be good nationally? As a Dem-Pub-Indep. ,this is a guy with billions and exactly what political experience in foreign policy, real domestic policy does he have? And today, he says he is not running. He lies , of course, everyone lies as House says. But, so what? He is a liberal. How many GOPers will vote for him. Very, very few. He will make both parties spend dough in NY and that is it or maybe NJ. So what? He will not get enough votes to win the electoral votes or even put it into the House. Morris thinks so but that is nonsense and we all know it. He is a liberal who has no BASE. He can only hurt some liberal Dems in lower tier races. He might take NY , might. Again, so what? It penalizes Hil not Rudy, Fred or Mitt. If he had no money, or just millions, would he even be considered for mayor or governor, of course not.
8. Posted by Glenn Koons | June 20, 2007 2:44 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 20, 2007 14:44
9. Posted by superdestroyer | June 21, 2007 8:27 AM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
There is polling data that a Bloomberg would give the Democrats a huge advantage in Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado. The moderate voters who lean slightly Republican would have an alternative much more than the Democrats who want to win.
9. Posted by superdestroyer | June 21, 2007 8:27 AM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on June 21, 2007 08:27
10. Posted by bryanD | June 21, 2007 2:34 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
The Democrats are determined to win and will vote the party line on '08. Whatever votes Bloomberg should get will come from elsewhere. Independents, Ripon Republicans, anti-Neocon Republicans, etc.
I would include anti-war Democrats, but since Gore will likely enter and win the Democratic nomination, never mind.
Again, Gore because the Dems are determined to win. Hillary is vulnerable. Republicans should hold their fire on all fronts lest a Richardson profit from Hillary's precipitous fall. With Hillary there is a glimmer of hope for Republicans holding the White House.
Bloomberg's entering is a big plus for the Democrats. Without a doubt.
10. Posted by bryanD | June 21, 2007 2:34 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 21, 2007 14:34
11. Posted by Jim Addison | June 21, 2007 3:28 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hey, superdestroyer ~ got LINKS for these polls you cite?
I haven't even heard of any polls being conducted with Bloomie in the mix - he only announced the change in registration the other day, so there really hasn't been time for anything but perhaps a bogus "online survey" from some TV station website, has there?
You really need to be careful which mushrooms you pick . . .
11. Posted by Jim Addison | June 21, 2007 3:28 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 21, 2007 15:28