The Bloomberg Effect

[jducoeur]

So the interesting "news" this morning on the radio is really tea-leaf reading. Mike Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, has switched his personal party affiliation again, from Republican to Unaffiliated. A lot of people are taking that as evidence that he is preparing an independent bid for the White House.

If it's true, it's damned interesting, at least to me personally. From what I've seen of him, Bloomberg appeals to me on a gut level more than most of the major-party candidates, maybe more than any except Obama. And from a policy perspective, he's *way* closer to me than any of the rest of the mob seeking the Presidency.

Of course, the interesting question is whether he stands a chance, and that's a remarkably complicated question. Normally, third-party bids are Doomed Doomed Doomed: Perot came closest of anyone in recent decades, and he was still a fairly distant third. That said, Bloomberg has a lot to say for him. He's got enough money that he doesn't need a major party's funding (as one pundit put it, he could fund a $100 million campaign and not notice the money spent). His indecisive relationship to the major parties mirrors that of much of the electorate. He's a true Beltway Outsider, that coveted title that not many of the existing candidates can honestly claim -- he's basically got all of Romney's strengths and none of his weaknesses. He's proven himself to be quite competent, and willing to take intelligent risks. And the fractured state of both parties (and the moderate discontent with the candidates on offer) leaves an interesting and unusual opportunity for him.

Really, though, the political bookmaking depends entirely on who gets nominated from the Big Two, although it's complex no matter how you slice it. If both parties nominate from their extremes (say, Thompson vs. Edwards), the hardcore of both parties will be happy, but the broad center will be looking for better options, and Bloomberg could pick up much of that. OTOH, a lot of voters on both sides will be extremely nervous that a vote for the independent will make it easier for The Other Side to win.

On the flip side, if both parties nominate centrists (for instance, the Subway Series of Giuliani vs. Clinton), the extremes of both will basically sit on their hands and stay home. (Or vote for fringe extreme parties that stand no chance.) Centrists on both sides will have less driving them away from their home parties, but on the other hand will have less to lose if they vote for the independent, since The Other Candidate isn't quite as bad relatively speaking.

Possibly best for Bloomberg would be if one side went extreme and the other didn't: the centrists in the extreme party would be driven to look for an alternative that was more palatable than the opposition, and Bloomberg would make a fine Lesser Evil. Add to that some folks from the less-extreme party who see the extreme side as likely to go down in flames (and therefore willing to chance it), and he'd have a shot.

All that said, I probably would put his chances at no more than 20% under the best of circumstances: the American two-party system is *deeply* entrenched, and it's hard to buck that system. He'd have to convince people on both sides not only that he's the best candidate, but that a vote for him isn't wasted; recent history makes that a hard sell.

So: opinions? Should he run, or shouldn't he? Do you like him, or not? For the moment, this is nothing more than an interesting speculative side-show; we'll see if it turns into something real. But it's intriguing...

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

He should run. He'll split the economic Republicans from the jesus Republicans, at least partially, if he runs his campaign right. He has enough personal cash to make a dent. He owns his own distribution mechanism, giving him a head start on publicity. Plus, I'm just always in favor of more candidates...it's not clear whether this is just because it gives more people for stand-up comics to mock.

Personally I don't like him, but that's only a vaguely informed opinion, based on second-hand reports from NYC friends.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Let me downgrade that 'vaguely' to 'barely informed', after some cursory reading. I'm going to go form an opinion now.

[ian-gunn.livejournal.com]

I have not paid Mr Bloomberg much attention. I will have to check him out.

I'm amused that you put Edwards in as for the extreme Democratic candidate. I have not looked at his current positions but from his last go around I pegged him in the middle due to his conservative social stances.

[jducoeur]

I tend to think of the extremes of the Democratic party in terms of economics and those of the Republicans in terms of social matters; that's specifically because it's where I think both parties get parodied most. So I think the *perception* of Edwards is as the most extreme, because he's relatively liberal (and outspoken) fiscally; his social conservatism just makes him centrist by national standards.

All that said, it's true that the spectrum is particularly muddy with the Democrats -- it's hard to say which is the "most liberal". (Although I think it's safe to peg Clinton as one of the most centrist -- she has to be, because her parody-image is so ravingly liberal.) The spectrum seems a bit clearer on the Republican side, if only because some of the candidates are such utter hyper-conservative loonies. (With the result that someone who is *merely* a fascist like Giuliani looks like the moderate of the bunch...)

Edwards on poverty

[metageek.livejournal.com]

Apropos of Edwards's social position: A couple of weeks ago, I saw an interesting article on his antipoverty stance. Summary: Edwards has chosen to make poverty his main issue, even though it may not be a winning issue, because he cares about it. It’s not just a puff piece, either; it points out the things Edwards has done that make him look less sincere (he worked for a hedge fund from 2004 to 2006; he has a 28,000-square-foot home), compares him to people who want to do even more, and explains why his plans may not make much difference.

[zachkessin.livejournal.com]

FWIW Mayor Bloomburg has been giving his money to good causes. He has given a huge amount to the Johns Hopkins school of public health, He donated a new maternity center to Haddassah University hospital at Ein karem in Jerusalem (It was a birthday present for his mother) he is also donating a new building for MDA (Magen David Adom, Israel's emergency services) I assume he has also given to a lot of other things in the USA, but I haven't had direct experience with that.

[shalmestere.livejournal.com]

So the interesting "news" this morning on the radio is...Mike Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, has switched his personal party affiliation again....

I thought the interesting news was that Bloomberg has agreed to restore previously-cut funding to the three NYC public library systems--but I might be biased :-)

Wait--*three*?

[metageek.livejournal.com]

Why does New York have three separate public library systems?

Re: Wait--*three*?

[shalmestere.livejournal.com]

One could speculate that the decision might have been tied to the bad feelings over the incorporation of the Outer Boroughs into the City of New York at the turn of the last century (Brooklyn, at least, was not happy about being assimilated), but the answer is probably more pragmatic. The Brooklyn Library system has 59 branches plus a Central library; Queens has 62 "community libraries" plus Central; NYPL (Manhattan. Bronx and Staten Island) has 87 branches plus the various research libraries (Mid-Manhattan, Donnell, etc.). Putting all that under one director would be a logistical nightmare (one could create "regional directors" for each Borough--but that's effectively what we have right now...).

[fairdice.livejournal.com]

Really, though, the political bookmaking depends entirely on who gets nominated from the Big Two...

Note this year's front-loaded primary schedule means he doesn't need to take any official action at all until after the major party candidates are both known. If it is Giuliani vs. Clinton, he might as well add a third NYer into the mix...

[jducoeur]

Possible, although it's a dangerous strategy. On the one hand, it means he can come in as a white knight; on the other, it means he needs to build a lot of momentum from a standing start. Might be a good idea, but it's not without risk...

[etherial.livejournal.com]

If he can build the mechanical support he needs before the primaries, he can then buy the ad time he needs for after the primaries. I think the Ds and Rs are way underestimating the amount of time their candidates will have to screw up in between the Primaries and the Elections, and may, at Convention time, end up having to ditch the Primary winner in favor of someone who hasn't screwed up yet.

[jducoeur]

I'll be surprised if that happens, but only because the internal fights within the party in question would be *spectacular*, and possibly crippling. But yes, there is a remarkably long time for the de facto candidates to trip themselves up after the primaries...

Observations

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

1) Bloomberg is Jewish. This will be a liability in some quarters -- oddly enough, particularly among some Jews.

2) I read the Perot story somewhat differently. Perot was an uncharismatic certifiable nut job, and even he was able to get about 12% of the popular vote. Bloomberg is not only not a nut job, but he has campaigned succesfully twice.

3) I agree that it is largely a question of how polarizing the major party candidates are. But I disagree with you in your assesment of Edwards. Edwards plays very well in the south and among disenchented Republicans in the west who are big on social justice and progressive economics but loath what they perceive as the traditional liberal anti-religious/tax-n-spend/ big government traditional democrats. Edwards is aggressive on Iraq and aggessive against "corporate power," but that does not play poorly in the south or west at the moment.

3a) By contrast, Hilary is most polarizing to both Dems and to the rest of the country. It is difficult for me to convey just how thoroughly Hilary Clinton is loathed by the progressive wing of the party -- which I would put at about 15-20% numerically but which is the most active segment. I would actually suggest that the "best" set of nominees for a third party candidate is Clinton v. Romney.

Re: Observations

[zachkessin.livejournal.com]

In A "Clinton v Romney v Bloomberg" race I would vote for Mayor Bloomberg in a heartbeat, I suspect he would do very well in that case.

Re: Observations

[jducoeur]

1) Good point. He's not as blatantly Jewish as some politicians, which helps a little, but you're correct that it's still going to knock at least a few points right off the top.

2) Reasonable, although on the flip side Perot had what was at the time a pretty impressive proto-party behind him. I suspect that Bloomberg would run as a true independent, which is always tricky.

As for 3, I'm willing to grant the point: my perception of Edwards is colored by being rather libertarian myself. And yes, that would be an interesting matchup. (Especially because, in a head-to-head comparison with Romney, it's hard to imagine Bloomberg not coming out smelling of roses...)

Re: Observations

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

It is difficult for me to convey just how thoroughly Hilary Clinton is loathed by the progressive wing of the party

Speaking as a professional video-game designer, and the spouse of a Media Studies scholar, the alternatives would have to be pretty bad to make me vote for her. Going for cheap shot "Won't someone think of the CHILDREN!" censorship proposals is repugnant to me on a number of levels.

[dsrtao]

Using Wikipedia's entry on Bloomberg as a guide, I would consider him a moderate Democrat. If he were pro-guns instead of anti-, I would call him a very liberal Republican.

Frankly, he doesn't look like a bad choice.

[jducoeur]

Yaas. He's exactly the sort of pragmatic centrist that seem to be distressingly rare nowadays...

[umbran.livejournal.com]

I think the issue becomes somewhat more complicated than just whether he'll win, depending on who else gets nominated.

Despite (and partically because of) his history I don't expect Bloomberg to draw much of the staunch Republican vote. He's only attractive to the centrists in that party. So, if the GOP nominates an extremist, Bloomberg would wind up splitting the remaining centrist and left vote with the Democrats, increasing the chance of a GOP win.

Personally, I think anyone who increases the chance for an extreme GOP win needs to be taken out and given a clue with a blunt instrument.

Now, if both of the other parties nominate centrists, things get interesting. If the GOP candidate isn't an idiot warhawk, a thrird party candidate, even without a chance of winning, can help keep the two parties more honest, with less awful repercussions if he splits someone else's vote.

[doubleplus.livejournal.com]

Is there any current GOP candidate other than Ron Paul who isn't an idiot warhawk?

[jducoeur]

Sadly, I don't believe so. Actually, to be fair, I suspect several of them aren't actually warhawks, they're just pandering to the right wing of the party. Which strikes me as a *remarkably* dumb strategy if you want to actually win the election, but presumably they feel it necessary.

(I'm pretty sure that McCain and Giuliani are sincere hawks. The rest I'm not nearly as sure about...)

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

I suspect several of them aren't actually warhawks, they're just pandering to the right wing of the party. Which strikes me as a *remarkably* dumb strategy if you want to actually win the election...

I have a feeling many of them are expecting Hillary to win the Democratic nomination, and that they're hoping she does, because ultimately she's gonna make McGovern and Dukakis look like contenders. Because after all the hype, I suspect she may turn out to be Paris Hilton. We're all ga-ga over her in the classic American-pop-culture-tabloid way, but when push comes to shove, are we -- and by "we" I mean Joe Q. Murrican from Peoria, not all of us on, well, on Justin's flist %^) -- ready to elect a woman? That woman? That woman, married to that man? That woman, the reverse-carpet-bagger senator from the blue state? Think about it. I think America is having a fling with Hillary before actually settling down. I think we have a better chance of electing a black president whose name sounds like he's in al-Qaeda, than that woman.

So pandering to the right wing of the GOP isn't unsafe if you secretly expect the donkey to slit its own throat for you.

Just an idiot

[metageek.livejournal.com]

Mind you, Ron Paul may be anti-war, but he's still an idiot. He opposes the International Criminal Court, believes in a conspiracy to replace the US with a North American Union, and is a strong racist.

Re: Just an idiot

[doubleplus.livejournal.com]

Oh, sure, that's why I was specific. :-) While I'm glad he's being a voice of sanity about the war in the Republican debates, I'm under no illusions about his views in general.

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

It's a fascinating scenario to ponder. Although I call myself an independent who always votes the issues, I have to admit that I can't recall ever voting for the Republican in a presidential election: hey, I'm not a hypocrite, those are my positions on the issues. On the other hand, if a third-party candidate actually showed real potential to win the thing, while actually to any serious degree failing to suck, I'd be sore tempted to vote for him/her out of the simple hope that the two-party lock on the American system might finally be smashed. Because although I'd hate to see the US become, say, Italy, I don't feel the two-party system has served us particularly well.