This man clearly has no intention of running for president:
Criticizing a recent Obama administration decision, Mayor Bloomberg said Monday that the Plan B morning-after contraceptive should be available over the counter to young teenage girls.
Bloomberg voiced his opinion during a question-and-answer session with reporters prior to a job promotion event in Queens.
Interestingly, the event was attended by the federal official responsible for the controversial policy decision, health secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
“It would be much better if these young girls didn’t get pregnant, but once that happens I think this should be available,” Hizzoner told reporters.
Speaking minutes later at the same event, Sebelius said: “I felt that the data presented, and justification for [making Plan B available to\] all ages, did not match.”
This is the second time in the past few weeks that Bloomberg has publicly criticized the president, with his previous displeasure with Obama directed at the president’s inability to tackle the deficit. This, along with Bloomberg taking “Occupy Wall Street” to the woodshed, has me suspecting that the New York Mayor may decide to run a fiscally centrist, socially liberal presidential campaign aimed at educated, “creative class” voters who tend to hold diverse views on various economic issues but are generally quite socially liberal.
From The Iowa Republican:
Seasoned political journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann offered up insights into the GOP horse race early Friday morning at a forum held at the Iowa Historical Building.
…
Despite the fact that New Hampshire’s primary has a history of repudiating Iowa’s pick, Halperin, editor-at-large and senior political analyst for TIME magazine, Time.com and MSNBC, and Heilemann, National Affairs Editor for New York magazine and also a senior political analyst at MSNBC, predict that whoever wins Iowa will get an important bump going into New Hampshire this time around.
While Romney has amassed a significant campaign war chest and could mount a war of attrition against the other GOP candidates, Halperin proposed how the momentum behind Gingrich and the organizational support of the Paul campaign could sink Romney’s shot at the White House by early February.
In a nutshell, Romney has to beat Gingrich here in Iowa. Should either Gingrich or Paul win Iowa, and Gingrich win New Hampshire, Romney would have to win in South Carolina and Florida, a make or break firewall for him, to continue to be viable by the time of the Nevada caucus on February 4. “There is only one scenario that Romney doesn’t win and that’s if one person wins three or four of the first four tests. It is imminently plausible that Gingrich could win. If Gingrich stumbles, then Romney is likely to succeed” said Heilemann.
…
The Obama team knows that holding on to the White House will be tough. Their strategy will be to redirect the vote next November from being a referendum on Obama’s first four years into a “choice election” that frames the contest as Obama being the “lesser of two evils” and the GOP challenger as an “unacceptable choice,” said Heilemann.
If Gingrich emerges as the nominee, the authors say may see a third-party centrist candidate come forward, someone like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Americans Elect is a non-partisan direct nominating organization working to advance the prospect of a third-party presidential candidate.
Although many people have concerns that a third-party candidate would dilute the Republican votes and hand the election to Obama, Heilemann sees a third-party candidacy as a complicating factor for Obama at this time.
Team Romney has 12 days to turn this thing around before the holidays freeze the race until January 2nd. Iowa votes on January 3rd. It’s now or never for Romney.
This past weekend on The Chris Matthews Show, John Heilemann of New York Magazine reported that a Newt nomination would result in an “80 percent” chance of at least one major third party candidate entering the race, based on the premise that I and others have been floating in recent weeks that a Newt/Obama race would leave a huge portion of the electorate unhappy with its choices. Heilemann suggested that we could see multiple third party candidates enter the race, including Michael Bloomberg, Ron Paul, and a Blue Dog Democrat such as Evan Bayh garnering the nomination of “Americans Elect,” which plans to be on the ballot in all 50 states. As such, we could actually end up seeing not just a four party election, as I suggested last week, but a five party general election, with the field, from left-to-right, looking something like this: Bloomberg (I), Obama (D), Bayh or Blue Dog equivalent (AE), Gingrich (R), Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (L). In this sort of election, anything could happen, and a hung Electoral College wouldn’t be out of the question. Is this a sign of the fall of the American republic or simply the reasoning of bored political junkies?
The thrice-elected New York City Mayor has ruled the possibility out, but that’s not going to stop pundits from envisioning a 2012 presidential race complete with a third party run by Michael Bloomberg:
After the supercommittee announced it was unable to come to an agreement on how to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal budget over 10 years, Bloomberg appeared all over the place to pronounce Washington broken.
At a press conference in Staten Island, he declared: “The failure of the supercommittee to come to an agreement is just a damning indictment of Washington’s inability to govern this country.”
He went after Obama especially: “It’s the chief executive’s job to bring people together and to provide leadership in difficult situations. I don’t see that happening. . . This partisan paralysis and political cowardice is defining Washington, and we just cannot afford to have that continue.”
That’s the kind of talk we heard from Ross Perot before he decided to take the plunge and run as an independent in early 1992.
Exit Question 1: Would an Obama/Romney/Bloomberg presidential race so disproportionately represent the cultural cues and beneath-the-surface political sensibilities of “Yankee-dom” that a fourth party candidate, representing the traditions of another region of the nation, make a run for the presidency under the banner of the Tea Party?
Exit Question 2: Would Candidate Bloomberg actually be able to capture a huge chunk of the center-left vote, as most pundits suspect that he would, given his positioning on the issues? Or would center-left voters, who tend to be educated, high-information types, scoff at the notion of “throwing their vote away” on a third party candidate?
Exit Question 3: Could Bloomberg actually win? Or does he just guarantee a President-elect Romney with an entirely new electoral map?
A recent Clarus poll was apparently designed to promote the candidacies of moderate Mitt Romney and a liberal mayor, Republican Michael Bloomberg and diss Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.
Just below, has to be one of the worst polling questions in the history of presidential politics.
If you had to pick between the two––would you prefer the next Republican presidential candidate be a moderate conservative who has a good chance of beating Barack Obama …or… someone who is an outspoken conservative who has only a fair chance of beating Barack Obama?
It is unclear whether folks taking the poll were also forced to choose between the following two descriptions:
1. A moderate, pragmatic conservative 61%
2. A staunch, outspoken conservative 29%
How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways.
1. The initial premise is flawed. Whenever a poll question forces you to choose, (“had to pick”) it is quite certain you are being had.
2. The question pairs ideas in a manner deliberately created to push one kind of candidate over another. Notice that the moderate candidate is presented as having a good chance to beat Obama while the conservative is only given a fair chance. If a respondent to the poll believed that the conservative had a better chance they would have no place in the poll to make the case.
The poll also asked voters to ”vote” in a three-way race between President Barack Obama, a Republican (Palin or Romney) and Michael Bloomberg. Romney did better than Palin in comparative races, for obvious reasons. Palin is unquestionably considered more “divisive” than Romney at this time, but it is quite doubtful anybody outside of New York even knows who Bloomberg is. This question at best shows a general disdain with party politics, and could not possibly indicate a positive attitude towards Bloomberg.
All of this shows not only the futility of putting too much stock in polls generally, but also the need to be aware of the shenanigans going on behind the scenes. Polls like these are not only unscientific, they are downright deceitful.
Crossposted at Caffeinated Thoughts
Clarus Research 2012 Presidential Survey
Because of term limits, Bill Clinton cannot run for President again. But, just suppose for a moment, that he could run again––in that case, would you prefer Barack Obama or Bill Clinton to be elected President?
Even though the President before Obama––George W. Bush––also cannot run for president again because of term limits, just suppose for a moment that he could run again––in that case, would you prefer Barack Obama or George W. Bush to be elected President?
I am now going to read to you a couple of statements about government and politics… please tell me whether you agree or disagree with each one––
In many ways, America is in decline and we need strong, competent leadership to get us back on track.
It would be good for the country to elect a nonpartisan President who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WERE ASKED ONLY OF REPUBLICANS…
As you may know, there are a number of Republicans who are considering running for president in 2012. Please tell me which ONE of the following would you most likely vote for if the presidential primary were held today… Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, John Thune, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, or Mitch Daniels…
Thinking more about the 2012 election…
Would you prefer the next Republican presidential candidate be someone with legislative experience in Congress …or… someone with management experience as a governor?
If you had to pick between the two––would you prefer the next Republican presidential candidate be someone with experience in government …or… someone with experience in private business?
If you had to pick between the two––would you prefer the next Republican presidential candidate be someone known for clear and consistent philosophical principles …or… someone known to be intelligent and competent?
If you had to pick between the two––would you prefer the next Republican presidential candidate be a moderate conservative who has a good chance of beating Barack Obama …or… someone who is an outspoken conservative who has only a fair chance of beating Barack Obama?
Do you think someone in his or her early 40s is too young to be President?
Survey of 1,000 registered voters, including a sub-sample of 365 registered Republicans, was conducted December 10-16, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points among all registered voters; +/- 5.1 percentage points among registered Republicans.
Washington Post/ABC News 2012 Presidential Survey
If the 2012 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Barack Obama, the Democrat and Sarah Palin, the Republican, for whom would you vote?
If the 2012 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Barack Obama, the Democrat, Sarah Palin, the Republican, and Michael Bloomberg, an independent candidate, for whom would you vote?
If Sarah Palin runs for president in 2012, would you definitely vote for her, would you consider voting for her, or would you definitely not vote for her?
If Barack Obama runs for re-election in 2012, would you definitely vote for him, would you consider voting for him, or would you definitely not vote for him?
If Michael Bloomberg were an independent candidate for president in 2012, would you definitely vote for him, would you consider voting for him, or would you definitely not vote for him?
Survey of registered voters was conducted December 9-12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.
Even among Republicans, Palin has detractors, with 29 percent saying they would definitely not back her candidacy. Her highest support comes from Republican women and conservative Republicans. Even so, only about one in five in each group say they would certainly support her presidential bid.
Neither does Palin enjoy wide support among independents: 62 percent say they definitely would not vote for her. Among moderates, 66 percent write off her prospective candidacy.
Still, the survey shows limits to Obama’s appeal. Among independents, 40 percent say they would not vote for him, 36 percent say they would consider it and 21 percent say they would certainly back him.
Bloomberg’s highest levels of support come from independents and young voters, although Obama far outpaces him in both groups. He also draws 25 percent of the vote from those who disapprove of Obama’s handling of the presidency, with Palin taking almost six in 10.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Earlier this week, Michael Bloomberg (Nanny Stater-NY) released his own economic blueprint for the nation that supposedly has nothing to do with any prospective presidential run:
“The economic policies that we have pursued to drive this growth have been neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative. Despite what ideologues on the left believe, government cannot tax and spend its way back to prosperity, especially when that spending is driven by pork barrel politics. Federal spending to stimulate the economy had a temporary, positive impact – but we are two years past the economic meltdown of 2008, and unemployment is still too high, the underlying economy is still too weak and the federal deficit is still rising too fast.
“At the same time, despite what ideologues on the right believe, government should not stand aside and wait for the business cycle to run its natural course. That would be intolerable, given the enormous unemployment we face, and the worsening job prospects for the 15 million people who are trying to find work.
“Government is not an innocent bystander in the marketplace, and it should not pretend to be. In the face of the current economic weakness, government must act: decisively, responsibly and immediately.
“For New York City to continue our growth, we need our federal and state governments to chart a middle way – between a government that would wash its hands of the problem and one that seeks to supplant the private sector; between a government that would stand on the sidelines and one that would take over the game.
“This is not to say that we should try splitting the difference between Democratic and Republican positions – that’s thinking too small. While it’s true there are no simple solutions to complex problems, fortunately there are solutions that can get us out of this mess, that can be embraced by those across the political spectrum, and that can start us on the road to long-term sustainable recovery.
“Common sense solutions that are straight-forward and relatively cost-free: things we can do together, to put people on private payrolls and encourage new investment; things that increase personal opportunity, instead of dependence on taxpayer bailouts and taxpayer handouts; things that encourage entrepreneurship and attract global talent and capital.
In what is most certainly a primer to his imminent third-party bid for the presidency, Bloomberg goes on to argue that America must become the world’s innovator again, but that innovation is only possible with the appropriate sort of government intervention in the economy. Bloomie proposes that we marry free trade and tax cuts to job training and incentivizing certain economic behaviors. That’s essentially the old D.L.C. message, and one that has been in exile for about a decade now. Bloomberg appears poised to resurrect the Third Way by running as a Clinton Democrat in 2012.
In so doing, Bloomberg is well positioned to become the Perot of the Left, siphoning away centrist and left-of-center voters who are unhappy with Obama but who can’t bring themselves to vote Republican. Bloomberg is in many ways the perfect candidate for the role of the Anti-Perot. Perot, a Texan, a veteran, and a plain-spoken individual, was a culturally appropriate candidate for right-of-center voters who were disenchanted with Bush 41. Similarly, Bloomie, an effete New Yorker with a wonkish style, would be a good fit for left-of-center voters who want to vote for a liberal, just not the liberal in the Oval Office. Perot attracted a wide array of disaffected Republicans, including deficit-hawks, Buchananites, and many old school moderates who liked Ross’ pre-Reagan detachment from social issues. Meanwhile, Bloomberg would be ideal for attracting the various strains of disaffected Democrats, including pro-Israel Dems, Clintonian budget-balancers, and perhaps very socially liberal Democrats who are frustrated with Obama’s disinterest in issues like DADT and gay marriage.
We all know how that story ended. Perot won about a fifth of the vote nationwide and almost certainly elected Bill Clinton to the presidency. So would Bloomberg likewise elect, say, Sarah Palin?
The answer is a resounding, “It depends.” Bloomberg will absolutely take the vast majority of his voters out of the Obama column. He might also win the Bush ’04/Obama ’08 voters, but even if the GOP is denied those voters, the Republican candidate will still garner most of the 46% of the vote that went to McCain in 2008. So theoretically, all Bloomberg has to do is grab 10-15 percent of the vote in order to make Sarah Palin President-elect.
I think this is all very likely, but with one caveat. The centrist and center-left voters who are planning to cast protest votes for Bloomberg will be aware that their votes are essentially helping to elect a Republican president. This was almost certainly the case in 1992 as well, when it was clear by Election Day that a vote for Perot was a vote for Bill Clinton. But my guess is that most Perot voters decided that they could live with a President Bill Clinton if it meant getting rid of President George Bush without actually pulling the dreaded “D” lever at the polling place. Similarly, in 1980, most John Anderson voters would have almost certainly cast ballots for Carter had the liberal independent not been in the race, and again, no serious observer thought Anderson had any shot of winning by Election Day. Anderson voters knew they were enabling a Reagan win, but they decided that a President Reagan was something they could live with.
But that hadn’t always been the case. Carter led Reagan for most of the campaign, even with Anderson in the race. Reagan only broke into a lead once he got the chance to make his case to the American people directly, through the debates and such. At that point, Americans realized that a Reagan presidency wouldn’t be the end of the republic, and may actually end up ushering in morning in America.
So how does this all tie into an Obama/Palin/Bloomberg race? Like Reagan, Palin can’t simply rely on Bloomberg to elect her president. If a Palin presidency is simply unfathomable to the Clinton Democrats, they’ll vote strategically and pull the lever once again for Obama. In that event, Bloomberg will be almost a non-factor. But if Palin is able to convince Americans that she is up to the job of being president, then many of those Clinton Democrats may decide to take a chance on Bloomberg, even if they are fully aware that they are helping to elect Palin.
Of course, there’s always the outside chance that Bloomberg could actually win the presidency, but such a result would be extremely unlikely, and would basically involve Bloomberg becoming the de facto Democrat in the race. In order to assemble an Electoral College majority, Bloomberg would have to win most of the Kerry states, plus a New Yorker-friendly red state like Florida. That’s because it’s nearly impossible to imagine Bloomie winning anything in Middle America. And if Obama were to become so marginalized that he essentially wasn’t even being treated as the Democratic nominee, he would probably pull an LBJ and “choose not to run” early on in the cycle so that the Democrats would have a shot at holding the White House with another candidate.
Quinnipiac NYC Terrorist Trials Survey
As you may know the Obama administration is considering moving the trials of suspected 9/11 terrorists out of Lower Manhattan. Do you think the trials of the suspected 9/11 terrorists should be moved out of Lower Manhattan or stay in Lower Manhattan?
- Moved out of Lower Manhattan 68%
- Stay in Lower Manhattan 25%
If the trials of suspected 9/11 terrorists are moved out of Lower Manhattan, should the trials be held elsewhere in New York State or held outside of New York State?
- In New York State 42%
- Outside New York State 44%
Do you think the suspected 9/11 terrorists should be tried as criminals in civilian court or as enemy combatants in military court?
- Criminals in civilian court 36%
- Enemy combatants in military court 56%
If the 2012 presidential election were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:
- Barack Obama 44%
- Sarah Palin 29%
- Michael Bloomberg 15%
Among Independents
- Barack Obama 31%
- Sarah Palin 27%
- Michael Bloomberg 24%
Among Republicans
- Sarah Palin 57%
- Michael Bloomberg 20%
- Barack Obama 11%
Among Moderates
- Barack Obama 52%
- Michael Bloomberg 21%
- Sarah Palin 15%
Among Men
- Barack Obama 37%
- Sarah Palin 31%
- Michael Bloomberg 17%
Among Women
- Barack Obama 51%
- Sarah Palin 26%
- Michael Bloomberg 13%
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?
- Approve 44% {46%} [55%] (56%)
- Disapprove 47% {44%} [35%] (32%)
Among Independents
- Approve 29% {41%} [47%] (51%)
- Disapprove 57% {44%} [37%] (32%)
Overall, has Barack Obama met your expectations, exceeded your expectations, or fallen below your expectations as president?
- Met expectations 42% {44%}
- Exceeded expectations 7% {9%}
- Fallen below expectations 47% {42%}
Overall, would you describe the direction in which President Barack Obama is moving the country as:
- Change for the better 37% {44%}
- Change for the worse 38% {35%}
- No change at all 22% {18%}
Overall, do you have a favorable or an unfavorable impression of Barack Obama?
- Favorable 50% {55%}
- Unfavorable 44% {41%}
Among Independents
- Favorable 39% {49%}
- Unfavorable 52% {43%}
Do you think the current economic conditions are mostly something President Obama inherited or are they mostly a result of his own policies?
- Economic conditions mostly inherited 62%
- Economic conditions mostly result of his own policies 29%
Among Independents
- Economic conditions mostly inherited 55%
- Economic conditions mostly result of his own policies 33%
Survey of 910 registered voters was conducted February 1-3, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 2-3, 7, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 3-6, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 1-3, 2009 are in parentheses.
There are probably 15-20 Democrats who have begun contemplating switching to the Republican party. No better reason can be found then the sliding poll numbers of Democratic Senator’s and Congressman who live in centrist or conservative districts/States. Governor Dean’s 50 State strategy may have seemed like a brilliant concept in 2006 and 2008, but like the defections of the early 1980′s, expect to see conservative Democrats repeat history and set the GOP on a path of majority status once again.
Michael Doerr cited a PPP poll that shows; “Blanche Lincoln loses to two GOP challengers with less than 20% name recognition“. As we witnessed with Senator Specter, most D.C. politicians are focused on re-election/political survival, rather then legislating based on their convictions and the best interests of their electorate.
Who do you believe are the Democratic Senators and Congressman most likely to switch parties before either the 2010 or 2012 elections?
My choices;
1) Rep. Dan Boren.
Boren refused to endorse Obama, called the Cap and trade bill the ‘worst bill he’s even seen‘ and opposes single payer health care. He is the only Democratic Congressman from Oklahoma.
Perfect score from the CFG, voted against the Obama Stimulus bill and only votes with his party only 40% of the time. Conservative credentials aside, Minnick will change parties because he has no chance for re-election as a Democrat. Minnick has an easy out, as previously he has flirted with the possibility of running both as an Independent and Republican.
I understand the Mayor is an Independent, not a Democrat, but Bloomberg is not ready to retire his political career and with poll numbers shifting away from liberalism in New York, expect Bloomberg to once again register as a Republican. One question remains; does Bloomberg want to be President or Senator?
_________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Today, a backup Air Force One plane took a low flight route through New York City, coming awfully close to the Statue of Liberty and Ground Zero. After frightened residents ran through the city for cover and bombarded news outlets for answers, the Obama administration revealed that they intended the incident as a photo op to replace the Air Force One stock picture. Apparently, someone didn’t get the memo…
Many residents and workers who saw the aircraft evacuated their buildings as a result, but officials say there is no reason for a panic.
Ellen in Bayonne, N.J. described what she saw to WCBSTV.com: “I saw the jet flying very very low over the Hudson river, it looked like it was going to fly through our office window. Then it banked sharply toward New Jersey. But our building was evacuated because it did this 3 times. A photo shoot should have been communicated to the building in the area. We haven’t forgotten 9/11, people were in a panic, lots of rumors, not a good situation.”
Most witnesses who called and wrote to CBS 2 HD and WCBSTV.com were furious that local authorities hadn’t notified anyone about the fly-over. The FAA, however, says they contacted the NYPD, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Office, New Jersey state police and other local authorities were told ahead of time about the shoot.
Mayor Bloomberg has expressed infuriation at the White House’s failure to inform the city and the general public about the event. The entire blunder reflects poorly on the usually savvy Obama media operation. And again, can you imagine what the MSM would have said if this had happened under Bush’s watch?
For the love of God, someone put this woman out of her misery. She’s in over her head in a way that we haven’t seen in, well, about a couple of months. Others have spoken extensively about the problems inherent in the entitlement mentality that Ms. Kennedy clearly subscribes to, but the case against her best comes from her own, you know, lips. In an interview with the New York Times, the socialite-cum-candidate-for-you-know-public-office didn’t have a lot to, um, say:
“I’m really coming into this as somebody who isn’t, you know, part of the system, who obviously, you know, stands for the values of, you know, the Democratic Party[.]”
…
“I know how important it is to, you know, to be my own person. And, you know, and that would be obviously true with my relationship with the mayor.”
…
“Andrew is, you know, highly qualified for this job,” she said. “He’s doing a, you know, a great job as attorney general, and we’ve spoken throughout this process.”
…
“You know, I think, you know, we’re sort of, uh, sharing some of this experience. And um, as I’ve said, he was a friend, a family member, and um so, and uh obviously, he’s, you know, he’s also had an impressive career in public office.”
…[W]hen asked how she might differ with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg or with Governor Paterson, who has sole authority to make the Senate appointment, she demurred.
“I’m not going to talk about my disagreements with him,” she said. “You’ll find out over time.”
If you want to know what she stands for, why don’t you just appoint her already? Gosh. Don’t you know who she is?
Ms. Kennedy would not say…whether she supported proposals to abolish tenure for teachers and offer them merit pay instead.
“To pick out the most controversial one as a stand-alone thing, I don’t think that’s really the way to go about this,” Ms. Kennedy said. “People can vote; it’ll be really interesting to see what happens. There’s a lot of experimentation going on in the country that we should pay attention to.”
Huh? Okay, well, how would you vote, Ms. Kennedy? Yes, there’s a lot of experimentation going around. Have you been paying attention to any of it? What do you think of it? Isn’t this your supposed area of specialty?
One of the main assets she could bring to the Senate, Ms. Kennedy suggested, was her celebrity itself. It would be useful, she said, in bringing attention to New York’s needs and fighting for a bigger share of federal stimulus money.
She may have a point. If she’s appointed to this — which she probably will be: is Governor Paterson, a legacy officeholder himself, really going to mortify a Kennedy? — it will only confirm that, in politics, nothing quite beats being born with the right last name.
She said she employed one household worker as well as a personal assistant — though she said she had far more experience managing people at the Department of Education. “Building a staff is something that I would have no trouble doing,” she said.
Oh, good grief.
…[W]hen asked Saturday morning to describe the moment she decided to seek the Senate seat, Ms. Kennedy seemed irritated by the question and said she couldn’t recall.
“Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman’s magazine or something?” she asked the reporters. “I thought you were the crack political team.”
Huh?
—
OK, so here’s what we know about Ms. Kennedy: she supports gay marriage (why?), opposes vouchers (why?), supports an undivided capital in Jerusalem (why?), opposes NAFTA (why?), and wants to bring people together (oh boy!). It’s not too harsh to say that a higher level of scrutiny needs to be applied to Kennedy: she is seeking this office with a preposterously low level of experience, has never been particularly attentive to New York politics, has never written much about politics in a way that doesn’t merely employ platitudes, and has lived a life of luxury, floating along on her family name. It’s not like she’s used to her family name to make herself a paragon of accomplishment through the channels that she’s been offered, which is at least something that we can say about, say, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. She’s just lounged around as a socialite, editor of a few books, and sometimes-public advocate. So when she comes to the table asking for a Senate seat, she deserves a lot of probing into her thoughts. This isn’t a time for fooling around: we face the threats of a depression, a nuclear Iran, and an ongoing war against radical Islam. We need serious professionals, not a celebrity.
Looking at the electoral map, John McCain has to break into the northeast liberal establishment to become competitive in November against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
I believe that the Vice Presidential running mate that will most turn out evangelicals and conservatives on behalf of McCain is Mike Huckabee — as I have suggested previously.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist is still flirting with McCain for the spot — but he won’t get it. Joe Lieberman is hopeful too, but he no longer pulls in the Northeast the way “someone else” might.
But some folks near McCain and others near Michael Bloomberg are floating (already) the idea of the New York Mayor joining the McCain ticket. I have no idea how sound this would be — but at first glance, it’s an interesting pairing.
The thinking on McCain’s staff is that even if a lot of evangelicals are uninspired by McCain and threaten to stay home, the “change” ticket of either Obama or the “back again” ticket of Hillary Clinton will animate the conservative base enough that the South remains largely impenetrable to the Dems.
McCain began running to the left tonight in his acceptance speech — and he may run to the left in his VP slot. . .and the most intriguing, surprising choice in those circumstances would be Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg could give McCain some much needed sizzle on the GOP ticket. Of course, Bloomberg would have to rejoin the Republican Party.
These are mostly rumors in pretty serious political circles — but still, something to chew on.
Look, McCain’s not going to pick Bloomberg as his running mate. The guy is to the left of both Democratic presidential contenders. Well, he’s at least to the left of Hillary, and probably slightly to the right of Barack Obama, along with every other United States Senator, including Bernie Sanders. But that is neither here nor there. What is becoming apparent is that Sen. McCain is planning on running a center campaign, assuming that the base will come to the polls out of fear of the Democratic nominee. I know readers won’t like to hear this, but I suspect that the reason McCain is pursuing this strategy is that it’s his only plausible path to victory.
Each presidential election brings with it a unique narrative that, like lightning, never strikes the same spot twice. Republicans throughout the blogosphere would love to think that the 2004 narrative, where an energized GOP base and millions of new evangelicals saved the day for President Bush, can be repeated over and over again. But it can’t. In 2004, Independents were split evenly between the two major party candidates, yielding an environment in which the level of energy and participation among the party bases determined the victory. But in 2008, Independents will not be divided so neatly and evenly. In fact, if the Values Voter was the “it” voter of 2004, the “it” voter of 2008 will be the Pissed-Off Independent. The narrative this year, you see, will either be that Pissed-Off Independents were so, well, pissed off that they kicked the Republicans out of the White House by voting for the Democrat, or that Pissed-Off Independents found the Democrat to be a bridge too far, and voted for a Republican who was acceptable to them. That’s it. That’s the story. No four million new evangelicals. No triumph of the Republican base. Just an election decided by Pissed-Off Independents. And boy, are they pissed off.
As such, Sen. McCain should do what it takes to win the center. And by all accounts, he will. Whether we like it or not.
It appears that way:
NEW YORK – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg lost California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – one of his biggest cheerleaders – to John McCain on Thursday and said in more certain terms that he won’t get into the presidential race.
The California Republican announced he is supporting McCain in the GOP primary next week, seeming to lower the expectation that he could be one of Bloomberg’s biggest boosters if the billionaire mayor made an independent run for the White House.
In a visit to Google‘s offices in New York City, Bloomberg said he is not a presidential candidate and that he’ll “stay that way,” a slightly stronger indication that he does not intend to seek the presidency.
For Bloomberg watchers who vigorously dissect every syllable, flinch and facial expression when he answers questions about whether he will seek the White House, the response went a bit further than he has gone in recent months.
While Bloomberg typically says he is “not a candidate,” he has given his aides and supporters freedom to promote the idea and study what it would take to mount a third-party campaign.
Part of his strategy would rely on winning the huge share of electoral votes that California offers – 55 of the 270 needed to win.
Bloomberg has made numerous trips there, and was actually in Los Angeles when he announced last June that he was leaving the GOP to become an independent, a move that shifted the presidential speculation into overdrive.
The mayor had also cultivated a key relationship with the Schwarzenegger, holding a fundraiser at his home for his re-election campaign; the governor has also heaped praise on him in the past. The pair have cast themselves as like-minded leaders who don’t rule by partisan politics.
Bloomberg, a technology mogul who founded the financial information company that bears his name, spoke to about 250 Google employees at their vast offices in Manhattan.
When asked if he was going to run for president, Bloomberg said, “No. Next question.”
Later, when a reporter asked about whether he might run, he said he is “not a candidate, and I’ll stay that way,” adding “I plan to finish out my term.”
With word that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made the decision to spent in upwards to $2 billion of his personal fortune in pursuit of an independent run for the White House, I thought I would take the opportunity to reprint my essay on why this would be one of the best things that could happen to the Republican Party in this cycle. This article was originally published on May 19th, 2007.-KWN
_______________________________________________________________________________________
New rumors of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s nascent independent White House bid caused much debate (and anxiety) in the right-leaning blogosphere this week.
Readers here and at other conservative sites such as Redstate expressed their dismay at the prospect, citing a recent Rasmussen poll which showed Bloomberg’s inclusion into the race causing a statistical tie between Hillary Clinton and her top Republican rivals, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, to turn into a nine-point lead.
I won’t spend any time debating the motives of Mayor Bloomberg in potentially wasting one-billion dollars of his amassed wealth in what any sane and intellectually mature adult realizes is an absolute hopeless endeavor (in what universe does he get to 270 electoral votes?) Although in my thoughts about it all, I can only come up with two. But that is a discussion for another time…
Allow me to make the case that a Bloomberg independent run is at worst, nothing for the GOP to be concerned about; and at best, a sort of deus ex machina that could serve to the save the skin of the GOP in 2008.
Who is Michael Bloomberg?
Mayor Bloomberg is an incredibly successful and enormously wealthy businessman (he was ranked as the 44th richest American and 142nd richest person in the world by Forbes magazine) who amassed his fortune with the sale of financial information terminals by the company he founded Bloomberg L.P. He holds a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Johns Hopkins University, and later went on to receive an MBA from the Harvard Business School.
Mayor Bloomberg is a renowned philanthropist (he has donated nearly $300 million to his alma mater John Hopkins alone). His personal charitable contributions have been calculated to place them in the top ten of all philanthropic endeavors in the entire United States.
But the crucial question here is: what do Americans outside of NYC know of Michael Bloomberg? The answer, according to polling, is almost nothing. So the most important factor to consider in debating the impact of his entry into the 2008 race is what American voters will make of him when his political positions are well-known.
Who is Michael Bloomberg Politically?
The truth regarding Mayor Bloomberg politically is that he is a man of the American Left in the mold of fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer, and perhaps the truest example of a RINO (Republican In Name Only) that there has ever been.
Michael Bloomberg was a lifelong member of the Democratic Party. When it became clear that he would be unable to win the Democratic nomination for Mayor, he abruptly switched his party affiliation to Republican in order to run in the Republican primary. The Republican party, seeking a better candidate to face a strong Democratic challenge from attorney and public advocate Mark Green, welcomed Michael Bloomberg as the best chance to retain the Mayor’s office. Bloomberg’s background as a successful businessman was particularly appealing in the wake of the rebuilding efforts after 9/11.
But where does he stand on the issues? Let’s review:
Abortion – Pro-Choice and opposes the PBA ban.
Gun Control – Bloomberg is one of the nation’s foremost advocates of gun control. He is currently the co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group whose proposals critics contend impact legal gun owners far more than they do criminals.
Mayor Bloomberg has drawn the the particular ire of the NRA over his Gun Control tactics in NYC and has sparked protests as far away as Virginia for bringing a lawsuit against two Virginia gun stores (for more on this story, as well as a “gun give away” to raise money for the legal defense fund of the owners of the Virginia gun stores, see here).
Gay Marriage – Favors the legalization of same-sex marriages.
Taxes – Bloomberg’s solution to the fiscal crisis faced by New York City in wake of the 9/11 was to impose billions of dollars in new taxes (a $3.5 billion dollar increase in 2003 alone). Cuts in unnecessary government spending were not on the table.
Personal Freedoms – Mayor Bloomberg may be the foremost “nanny-stater” to hold elected office in the United States. One of the first measures of his administration was the imposition of a smoking ban in NYC’s bars and nightclubs. In June of 2006, NYC became the first municipality to ban the use of trans-fat in city restaurants.
Immigration -Has described border enforcement as “futile” and supports comprehensive immigration reform in the mold of McCain-Kennedy. Bloomberg has issued an executive order to city employees instructing them not to ask or disclose information regarding a person’s immigration status.
In all likelihood, if Mayor Bloomberg were “Senator Bloomberg”, he would have an ACU rating somewhere in the 20′s. When viewed in their entirety, we can see that Bloomberg’s positions are hardly those of a candidate who will reach out to conservative/moderate Independents and conservative Dems.
Worst Case Scenario: Bloomberg 2008 = John Anderson 1980
A Bloomberg 2008 run immediately draws to mind the last time a liberal Republican mounted a serious third-party independent candidacy-Illinois Rep. John Anderson.
Like Bloomberg, Anderson’s run was initially greeted with great enthusiasm and the expectations of having a significant impact on the race.
John Anderson began at over 25% in national polls from the onset of his campaign. However, his support began to drop at a rate of about 1.5% a week-and towards the end, even more.
On election day, Anderson did win 7% of the popular vote, but the diffusion of that 7% over the nation as a whole led Anderson to fail to win even a single precinct in the entire United States. Disappointed in his inability to play even a spoiler role, Anderson became an advocate of Instant Run-Off voting.
Even with his $1 billion, it is difficult to imagine a geographic area that would be particularly receptive to his positions outside of the Democratic strongholds of the Northeast and perhaps the Pacific Northwest. And even there, his ability to defeat the eventual Democratic nominee is difficult to imagine.
Best Case Scenario: Bloomberg 2008 Leads to GOP Landslide
Many people of course would point to Ross Perot’s 1992 Independent run as an example of a worst case scenario (I would argue that Perot only made Bush’s loss worse. However, you can play with the numbers for yourself with Dave Leip’s essential Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections to see if you can reasonably get Bush to 270 electoral votes).
The fallacy in that argument is the assumption that former party affiliation, and not candidate ideology, is the primary factor in voters decision on third-party candidates- (I don’t like my party’s candidate, so I’ll vote for the other candidate from my party in the race.) It seems ludicrous, in my opinion, to assert that someone who decides to defect from one of the two major parties would do so for anything other than ideological preference.
Ross Perot was a lifelong Republican. In the 2008 crop of GOP candidates, Perot would fit comfortably into the Tancredo, Hunter, Buchananite wing of the GOP. So even if we persist with the assumption that Perot cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 election, we are talking about a bird of a different feather in Michael Bloomberg.
A better possibility is for Bloomberg to siphon the votes of Democratic leaning Independents away from the Democratic nominee. Even in a country that is perhaps more receptive than ever for a third-party, it is difficult to imagine rank-and-file Republicans defecting from Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson to a third-party candidate who is more Dick Durbin than Tom Coburn. The consequence of which in states like MI, OH, MN, WI, FL, MO, AR, OR, and PA (as well as other Northeastern states like NY and NJ depending upon the GOP nominee) should be a cause for excitement, not anxiety, for Republicans.
The key in understanding a Michael Bloomberg presidential run is the fact that he is closer ideologically to Ralph Nader than to H. Ross Perot.
The American electorate is not aware of this yet.
But they will be…
According to Forbes and “folks close to” Bloomberg, anyway:
And this time it is for real. Folks close to New York City’s twice-elected mayor suggest that he’s made up his mind to end one of the city’s long-running rumors and become an Independent candidate for president.
The date of his announcement? Penciled in for right after Super Tuesday–Feb. 5.
This of course flies smack in the face of the countless denials that he would never run for President. But nobody cares about that (see Obama, Barack). The article goes on to mention Bloomberg is willing to spend over $2 billion of his personal fortune (up from the original $1 billion talked about earlier this year) to make a go of it.
Just when you thought it wasn’t possible, the race 4 2008 gets even more interesting…
As Dave predicted the other day, Mike Huckabee’s rise as the potential GOP nominee means that we need to get ready for a Mike Bloomberg third party bid:
Mayor Bloomberg’s aides have been reaching out to consultants from his past campaigns about whether they are free for a possible 2008 White House bid – including one who helped make his slick mayoral TV spots, The Post has learned.
The moves took place in the past few weeks, as the primaries for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees are about to begin – and aides have suggested that he will wait and see who the nominees are before making a decision about an independent White House run.
Bloomberg aides reached out to people involved in ad-making – including one who had been involved in creating the mayor’s vaunted TV spots – asking about their availability in the coming months, the sources said.
That Bloomberg aides would look to lock up an ad team dovetails with what the mayor has privately told people about how he would spend up to $1 billion of his own fortune on an independent run, which would be played out mostly on the TV airwaves and through direct mail.
The Post has learned that a New York political activist who worked on the mayor’s last campaign had been planning on joining up with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign team and reached out to discuss it first with Bloomberg’s aides.
Bloomberg’s advisers told the politico he should not sign up with another campaign and instead wait and see what happens with the mayor, the sources said.
The new flurry of activity by Bloomberg’s political aides – led by Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey – comes amid speculation about whether the mayor will make a third-party campaign.
A Bloomberg spokesman declined comment.
Bloomberg himself has insisted he has “no plans” to run for president, even while talking privately about the possibility – and while allowing Sheekey to drum up interest and scope out the logistics of a run.
Sheekey has said publicly that the mayor doesn’t have to make a decision before March 5.
That’s the day after the Texas primary elections – but it’s also the first date that nominating petitions for an independent candidate in the state can be circulated.
Today on the Chris Matthews Show, John Heilemann of New York Magazine reported that despite the New York Mayor’s Shermanesque statements on the matter, Michael Bloomberg is poised for a presidential run should the two major parties nominate Mitt Romney and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Heilemann’s scoop comes from a source close to the mayor, and one who remains unnamed. What impact would a third party Bloomie run have on a Romney/Hillary race? Have at it in the comments.
In a move that has stunned New York , the Bloomberg administration is in discussions to escort the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to ground zero during his visit to New York next week, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said today.
The Iranian mission to the U.N. made the request to the New York City Police Department and the Secret Service, who will jointly oversee security during the president’s two-day visit. Mr. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to arrive September 24 to speak to the U.N. General Assembly as the Security Council decides whether to increase sanctions against Iran for its uranium enrichment program.
Mr. Kelly said the NYPD and Secret Service were in discussions with the Iranian mission about the logistics for the possible visit, and whether it will take place at all. He said Mr. Ahmadinejad would not be allowed to descend into the pit for safety reasons related to ongoing construction there.
“There has been some interest expressed in his visiting the area,” Mr. Kelly said. “It’s something that we are prepared to handle if in fact it does happen.”
Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Ahmadinejad had not indicated why he wants to visit the site of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Iran has been called the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism” by the U.S. State Department.
Gov. Romney had this to say about it:
“Ahmadinejad’s shockingly audacious request should be met with a vehement no. It’s inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at Ground Zero. This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him.”
If you were ever really serious about it-you can kiss you presidential ambitions goodbye now Mike…
Update One: Here is Hizzoner’s statement:
“Under no circumstances should the NYPD or any other American authority assist President Ahmadinejad in visiting Ground Zero. This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring Bin Laden’s son and other al-Qaeda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero – hallowed ground for all Americans – is outrageous.”
Update Two: Here is FDT’s statement:
“It is an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11 at the hands of terrorists, and those who have fought terrorism for years, to allow the president of the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism to step foot at ground zero. Iran is responsible for supplying weapons and supporting extremist who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to this very day.”
Update Three: NYPD to Mamoud, “NOPE!“
No, I won’t.
Former New York Mayor Ed Koch is predicting that current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will make a third party run against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Why the race for 2008 is centered so greatly on New York instead of a state closer to the nation’s political center of gravity — say, Florida — is a query for another time.
Koch speaks favorably of Bloomberg, and suspects many of us will see things his way as the campaign season progresses. Money quote:
Bloomberg’s approach is a far cry from that of the combative Giuliani, whom national audiences are just starting to truly get to know. A comparison of Bloomberg’s terms in office and accomplishments with Rudy’s would unsettle Giuliani — just look at those crime rates. Some portray Bloomberg’s approach to government as that of a technocrat. Others use the terms businessman or CEO. I prefer a different description: “governs with common sense.” That would be a pleasant change in Washington, just as it has been in New York.
…
Once in office, Bloomberg revealed a style that was totally different than mine and Giuliani’s. Rudy and I are often described as outspoken, bigger than life. Now I can’t speak for Rudy, but I am by nature a retiring personality, even shy. But you’ve got to step up. When I took office in 1978, the city had a crushing $6 billion short-term debt. “If you follow me, I will lead you across the desert,” I would brazenly tell the people of New York. I did ultimately bring fiscal stability, restoring the city’s bonds to an investment-grade rating and, most important, helping the people of our five boroughs to once again feel proud to be New Yorkers.
Bloomberg arrived at City Hall in a fiscal situation somewhat similar to mine, along with simmering resentments left by Giuliani and the awful damage of 9/11, but he handled it all very differently. He did not cheerlead or exhibit an oversize personality. He was very restrained — almost too restrained. Most people knew he was a rich businessman, but he seemed to be a regular guy. (A regular guy, that is, who happened to have a huge townhouse on East 79th Street, a blockbuster business, a radio and television station, houses around the country and the world, and his own plane to fly him wherever he wanted to go. Plus, he’s a licensed helicopter pilot.)
Liz Mair, who is guestblogging for a vacationing Andrew Sullivan, is less than impressed:
Bloomberg seems to be showing an increasing tendency to meddle in just about everything, on “common good” grounds, and it’s something that I have to say seriously, seriously annoys me. Especially if we are headed towards a Bloomberg presidential candidacy (which, incidentally, Ed Koch thinks we are– side note to Ed on the title of his piece in tomorrow’s WaPo, though: you may like Mike, but I highly doubt I will, no matter what you say).
Agreed. Bloomberg may be a post-partisan, post-ideological, managerial technocrat to New Yorkers, but to everyone else, he’s just another New York liberal. Bloomberg won’t be able to find a hole in a Rudy/Hillary race for a centrist third-party candidate, both because he’s not a centrist and because both Rudy and Hillary possess strong centrist sensibilities. Bloomie can’t run as the competence candidate in a race with these two either; Hillary’s whole campaign seems to be based on her husband’s managerial competence, while Rudy will be touting his own, with his mayoralty as evidence. What’s left? Bloomie the anti-war candidate? Is Bloomberg even anti-war? Would pro-war Democrat Ed Koch support Bloomberg so strongly if he were? Bloomberg may think he can buy his way into this race, but he’s not going to find a lot of disaffected voters looking for the specific combination of traits that he brings to the table given the likely major party nominees and the issues of the day. Include a third-party alternative like Ron Paul or Sam Nunn in a Rudy/Hillary race and then you might find a vacuum that needs filling.
(Incidentally, for those conservatives who have stopped reading Andrew Sullivan’s blog, you may want to check out his guest bloggers during Andrew’s personal version of August recess. Liz Mair, Bruce Bartlett, and Professor Bainbridge are three very smart Republicans who all have very smart things to say, and they’re all filling in for Andrew this month. He’s also included some token liberal or other for good measure, though no one as interesting as Christopher Hitchens or Camille Paglia, both of whom would have rounded out that motley group quite well. Check it out for some good political nerd fun.)
From Matt Towery of Insider Advantage:
As first reported by InsiderAdvantage Georgia and the Southern Political Report, former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn is being courted for a possible third-party bid for president or vice president next year, and now Nunn has publicly confirmed he may be interested.
Nunn, now 68, was Georgia?s U.S. senator for 24 years (1972-1996). During part of that time, he chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. John Kerry considered the moderate Georgia Democrat as a potential running mate in 2004.
Nunn currently is chief executive officer of the NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative), a charitable organization working to reduce the global threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and continues to be known among the DC establishment and media as “the man” when it comes to matters related to defense.
We also told our readers that a group of former Washington operatives, including former Carter administration members Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon, has been quietly working to create a legitimate third-party effort in ‘o8, and that they were sounding Nunn out, possibly with an eye towards a Bloomberg-Nunn independent candidacy.
Update: The story has now been picked up by the AP (they must read R408 to get their leads) and Nunn has ruled out VP. If he runs it will be for “the Big House.”
And the MSM thinks this man will appeal to Americans who are mad as hell at government?
Suffice it to say that a guy who has a bad day when an eight dollar car toll is rejected is not the sort of fellow that would fill any discernible vacuum in the coming presidential race. If there’s anything the race for 2008 has its fill of, it’s pro-government politicians.
Now this guy, on the other hand…
The coming presidential election is just the sort of contest that cries out for a third-party protest candidate into whom the voters can channel their collective angst. That’s because 2008 is shaping up to be a year in which voters are disgusted with both parties, demonstrated by the equally dismal approval ratings of President Bush and the Democratic Congress. Further, of the leading presidential contenders on either side of the aisle, none has yet been able to connect with voters’ “mad as hell” sentiments towards all things Washington. Lecturing the electorate on why they shouldn’t be mad as hell isn’t going to help. Nor will pointing fingers at the other party, as Democrats are wont to do. Americans once again feel that their representatives in government have forgotten just who owns this country, and they’re out for blood. And they’re going to get it. One way or another.
Consequently, the MSM, sensing that we are once again about to see a 1968 or 1992 style electoral debacle, has been coronating one Michael Bloomberg as the latest incarnation of Ross Perot, a third-way kinda guy who will tell it like it is and spoil the election for the Republicans. Indeed, even I bought into the Bloomie schtick until recently. But I have since been disabused of that notion for several reasons. Foremost among them is the simple reality of what sort of vacuum will exist in the race for 2008.
While many readers will disagree, and some rather vehemently, I believe that the two major party nominees will almost certainly be Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. I believe this to be the case for a number of reasons, none of which need be laid out in this post. Now, in such a race, there would almost certainly be room for a third-party candidate due to the vacuum that would exist in a general election campaign. But said vacuum would most certainly NOT be filled by Michael Bloomberg. Here’s why.
In a Rudy/Hillary race, the nation is faced with two major party candidates who are a) northeastern, b) pro-choice, c) pro-Iraq, and d) who have significant appeal to centrists of various sorts. With author Fred Siegel’s recent revelation that Bloomberg isn’t particularly anti-war, and with our own Aron Goldman’s discovery that Bloomie sees his role in the race as to fill a vacuum in the center, the rationale for a Bloomberg candidacy in a Rudy/Hillary race ceases to exist. To put it another way, we already have two relatively centrist, pro-choice, pro-war New Yorkers in the race — is there really room for a third? To ask the question is to answer it.
So if not Bloomberg, then who? Many observers will look to their left and opine that Ralph Nader could once again make waves. But does anyone seriously think that liberals will allow Nader to deny them the White House yet another time? Others will look to their right for that looming third-party pro-life candidate. But third-party candidates rarely come from the poles of American politics; a pro-life candidate running an abortion-centered campaign would annoy Team Rudy, but wouldn’t take more than 2 or 3 percent of the vote. In order for a third-party candidate to truly make waves, he has to fill the Rudy/Hillary vacuum. In short, we’re looking for a pro-life foreign policy realist from Middle America who, like Americans, is mad as hell.
I can think of two candidates who could potentially fit the bill. The first is Ron Paul. The Republican congressman from Texas would be running as a pro-life libertarian who ardently opposes the Bush Doctrine. The contrast between Paul and the two New Yorkers couldn’t be any more clear. The problem with Paul is that his constitutionalist views will make many Americans uncomfortable; Paul is demonstrative of the reason the Libertarian Party is never able to garner a significant percentage of the vote. Paul could manage to fill the niche for a protest candidate, but voters would have to overlook his other “wacky” views.
Another possibility is Chuck Hagel, who could run as a more moderate, media-friendly version of Ron Paul. Hagel fills the vacuum quite well: he’s from Nebraska, he’s pro-life, he’s opposed to Iraq, and his views on most other issues are center-right, just like most of the country. Plus, the media adores Hagel nearly as much as McCain, meaning he’d have a friendly MSM to get the ball rolling. If Hagel were to make a serious run for the Unity ’08 ticket, he could assemble the support of a motley crew of paleocons, anti-war centrists, and the sorts of liberals who always admired McCain. Whether or not Hagel is up to this task remains to be seen.
Those who are tempted to balk at such a possibility simply don’t realize the size of the vacuum that will be created if any of our guys is pitted against Hillary Clinton. There will literally be millions of Americans who don’t want to vote for a Republican who seems incapable of properly distancing himself from President Bush, but who also don’t want to vote for Hillary because, well, she’s Hillary. There will be a strong demand for a third-party candidate to fill this vacuum. The only question is whether there exists a candidate who can win the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-GOP, anti-Hillary voter.
No, not THAT Fred!
The Fred in question is Fred Siegel, who lets loose on Bloomberg in his most recent column:
In 1992, Perot?s strength came from white, male swing voters, often Reagan Democrats, who found his message of economic nationalism and fiscal restraint appealing in the face of increased global competition, President George H.W. Bush?s tax increases, and revelations about Bill Clinton?s draft dodging. For all of the talk of polarization since the contested 2000 election, those swing voters have never gone away. George W. Bush?s margin of victory in 2004 came from independent-minded married women, Hispanics, and Catholics. The Republicans suffered in 2006 because Reagan Democrats and that overlapping group, the Perotistas, went strongly for the Democrats.
All this would seem to suggest fertile ground for a Bloomberg candidacy. But there is no indication that Bloomberg?s call for post-partisan, technocratic government resonates with voters. The last candidate with this message was the hapless Michael Dukakis.
Many of the major issues roiling the public today are in one way or another tied to globalization. Iraq, immigration, inequality, the influence of big money in politics, out-of-control government spending, and outsourcing are what make middle-class swing voters anxious and angry. A Ross Perot/Lou Dobbs sort of candidate could appeal to those voters, as well as to large chunks of the Republican and Democratic electorate. By contrast, the Bush/Senate immigration reform bill garners approval from only 23 percent of the public.
But from the perspective of 2007?s angry voters, Bloomberg is on the wrong side of these issues. He hasn?t spoken much about Iraq, but what he has said has been largely supportive of President Bush. He not only supports the immigration bill, but he also doesn?t see massive illegal immigration as a problem. He is the personification of inequality, of a social hierarchy in which the super-rich seem to have seceded from the rest of the country. As for out-of-control government spending, Bloomberg?s budgets have grown at twice the rate of inflation. And when it comes to outsourcing, Bloomberg built his fortune on the growth of the global economy. Rather than representing an alternative, Bloomberg incarnates the very things people are angry about.
If Bloomberg runs as just another New York liberal — and one who is pro-Iraq to boot — his campaign will basically be absorbed by Hillary Clinton, who will have the exact same positions and who will actually have the nomination of a major party. Siegel’s commentary on Bloomie’s support for Iraq is interesting. I had always assumed Bloomberg was opposed to Iraq, and was looking to be a blank slate for the “mad as hell” anti-Iraq voters across the political spectrum to project their anger onto. That’s the only way he makes waves, and if Bloomberg decides not to fill the vacuum in the race for the anti-war candidate, someone (Chuck Hagel?) will. And whoever does will end up doing a lot better than Bloomberg, despite the billions of the latter.
When politics first became a passion of mine in the early 1990s, one of the first books I perused on the subject was Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms, the story of Reagan political strategist Ed Rollins. I found that Rollins’ political evolution eerily matched my own, with his taking place over a much longer period of time of course, as the fellow is much, much older than me (heh). We both came from families inundated with FDR Democrats. We both found ourselves more at home with Reagan Republicanism. We both felt that Bush 41 had helped to destroy the Reagan Revolution. We both supported Perot in 1992 (that was the election that brought me into politics). And we both came to regret it.
Rollins’ opposition to the Bushes has kept him on the political sidelines over the last few years. But, at a time when conservatism is again in crisis, with another unpopular president named Bush at the party helm and a candidate named Clinton looming on the horizon, Rollins’ commentary on potential third-party candidate Michael Bloomberg may serve as a prelude of things to come. In his commentary, Rollins suggests that Bloomberg has the potential to be a sane version of Ross Perot:
Bloomberg’s week of dominating the media demonstrates just how eager the country is to turn the page on the Bush presidency. Bloomberg is one of the nation’s most popular and effective politicians — and also one of the least ideological. While a divisive president and a wobbly Congress languish with some of their lowest approval ratings ever, the rock-solid mayor’s approval rating has soared to more than 70 percent. In the latest survey of New Yorkers, 77 percent of black voters approve of Bloomberg, as do 80 percent of whites and 63 percent of Hispanics. Not bad numbers for anyone — and more than enough to tempt an ambitious, risk-taking entrepreneur onto the national stage.
…
If he runs, Bloomberg will be able to set an agenda that the Democratic and Republican nominees will have to confront. After what will undoubtedly be the most expensive primary season in U.S. history, the major parties’ nominees (or is that survivors?) could well be selected by March 1 — and they’ll be beaten, bruised and broke after spending millions to get there.
Bloomberg, who’ll be tanned, rested and ready, could begin his campaign in earnest by spending his own millions (and perhaps as much as a staggering $1 billion) in a national campaign starting in March. He wouldn’t hear much rebuttal from the major-party candidates, who’ll have to wait until after their conventions in late August and early September to get their federal campaign funding of approximately $90 million. When Bloomberg needs cash, he’ll go to his local ATM.
I think Rollins makes some good points, but I think he would also agree that it’s a near certainty that Bloomberg will never actually win the White House. Whether his campaign is able to garner 5 percent or 15 percent of the vote depends on how Bloomberg markets himself. If he runs as a nanny-state liberal Democrat, which is what he is, there won’t be much room for him in the race, as we’ll already have one of those on the Democratic ticket. If Bloomberg instead runs as Perot without all the nuttiness and crafts a campaign message that is anti-ideology in substance, he could make waves. Bloomberg needs to present himself as a problem-solver who is informed by pragmatism instead of a distinct political philosophy. He’ll also need to develop specific plans to tackle a few big issues that most Americans care about. A Bloomberg campaign that attempts to develop pragmatic, workable solutions to the entitlement crisis, public education, the deficit, the uninsured, the national debt, and Iraq without any real ideological slant could be one that taps into the disaffected voter who really, really wants to punish the Republicans, but doesn’t want to vote for Hillary. Such a candidacy would hurt both parties, and probably juggle a few electoral votes around in a race where a few electoral votes will decide the outcome.
Rudy Can’t Fail; Thompson Strong in Reds; Bloomberg Hurts GOPers
SurveyUSA recently released state-by-state polling on a series of general election matchups. The results are bittersweet for Republicans hoping to retain the White House next year. The polling generally suggests that Rudy Giuliani is the GOP’s best horse going into 2008, that Fred Thompson is a solid candidate that would have a hard time getting to 270 in the electoral vote count, and that Michael Bloomberg does in fact hurt the GOP ticket a bit more than the Democratic one.
Dave Wissing has posted the results of the Rudy/Hillary matchup here.
The SUSA state-by-state polling involving three-way matchups between various Republicans and Democrats and Michael Bloomberg can be found here.
First, let’s look at Bloomie’s impact on the race. The best way to do this is to compare the Rudy/Hillary matchups with those involving Rudy, Hillary, and Bloomberg. Without Bloomberg, Rudy bests Hillary in Alabama, Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia, all red states from 2004. Rudy loses the Bush states of New Mexico, Iowa, and Ohio to Hillary, comprising 32 of Bush’s 286 electoral votes and bringing the Republican total down to 254. But Rudy wins Washington, with 11 electoral votes, and is only a point behind Hillary in Wisconsin, with 10 electoral votes. Moreover, Rudy is a mere 5 points behind Hillary in California, with its 55 electoral votes. And Pennsylvania and New Jersey, electoral-rich pro-Rudy states, remain untested in this batch of polls. Rudy has at least an even shot of beating Hillary in the race to 270, which is more than any other GOPer can say right now, as my analysis will show.
Now let’s add Bloomberg into the equation. In a race with Bloomberg, Hillary snags Missouri from Rudy and holds Washington. That’s a shift of 22 electoral votes in what looks to be the sort of race where 22 electoral votes actually matter. To be fair, Bloomberg doesn’t take that many more votes from Rudy than from Hillary, and in some states, it’s actually the other way around. But Bloomberg’s net impact on the race is to deny the GOP candidate a few electoral votes that he desperately needs.
Next, let’s look at the various three-way matchups that SUSA has tested. Three GOPers were included — Rudy, Thompson, and Romney. Bloomberg was included in all matchups. As the numbers illustrate, Fred Thompson is the GOP’s second-strongest candidate of the bunch. This is due to Fred’s strength in Red America, where he solidly defends the south and interior west against Hillary.
In a three-way race, Fred wins Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Texas, and Virginia against Hillary. Fred loses Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Missouri, all red states that Rudy also loses in a three-way. But unlike Rudy, Fred is unable to make up for these losses by making gains in blue states. In the three-way, Rudy is only 5 points down in California. Fred is 17 points down. Rudy is 11 points behind in Minnesota. Fred is 18 points behind. Fred has 8 more points to gain than Giuliani in order to take back Ohio. And as much as I like Fred, and I do, the thought of him being able to turn to the tri-state area and make up for lost electoral votes by winning Pennsylvania or New Jersey is ludicrous.
This illustrates the basic problem with those hoping to repeat the red state strategy in 2008. It can’t be done. The red state strategy is dead. The reason it’s dead is that the border states and the southwest, as they demonstrated last November, are not going to once again vote Republican with unanimity. A number of those states are going to go blue. They just are. Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Missouri seem to be the prime candidates, and I wouldn’t put it past Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and Virginia to do the same. Even if we lose only half of these states, the election is lost unless a GOP candidate can win at least a few states that went blue in 2004. The only GOP candidate who can accomplish that task is Rudy Giuliani. Rudy puts California, Washington, Wisconsin, and probably lots of other blue states in play while remaining just as strong as Fred in all the red states. Giuliani remains the GOP’s best hope for 2008.
One final note: Romney supporters should be concerned about two things. First, Fred has entered this race in the past few weeks while spending little money and with name recognition similar to Romney and is still doing better than Romney in pretty much every general election matchup included in this polling. Thompson does better than Romney against Hillary in 13 of 16 states, with Romney doing marginally better but still losing by double-digits in the remaining 3 states of Massachusetts, New York, and Minnesota. Second, Romney loses 16 of 16 states to Hillary. All of them. Every single one. The reader can draw his own conclusions about all of this. Mine: I think Romney has been running as the candidate who wants to double-down on Bush Republicanism, but who will pull it off with actual competence and communication skills. I think the country is sick of Bush Republicanism, hence last November’s election results. I think that Thompson’s small-government constitutionalism and Rudy’s fiscally conservative, socially agnostic, terror warrior approach are bigger breaks from Bushism than is Romney’s good-government Republicanism. Those who disagree will have to explain why a pro-choice New Yorker is doing better than Romney in Alabama and Texas, and why a good ole boy with a red pickup is doing better than Romney in Washington, Oregon, and California.
I usually don’t link to Fred Siegal (mostly because he’s too much of a Rudy partisan for my tastes), but he has a very interesting and lengthy article on Mike Bloomberg’s nascent presidential run in today’s New Republic (sub. only) that I think deserves some attention:
On Tuesday, Michael Bloomberg, who had purchased the New York City and State Republican Party at a fire sale, announced he was leaving the GOP. The next morning, he highlighted a managerial achievement that underlines the rationale for his all-but-declared independent presidential campaign. With the press corps gathered at City Hall, he held a ceremony to mark the 50 millionth call to New York’s 311 hotline. This innovation, borrowed from Chicago, has made it far easier for residents to contact city government with their problems. Bloomberg, in high spirits, put his arm around the operator who had received the call and asked with a wink if she was planning to run for president.
The popular mayor–he has a stunning 73 percent approval rating–has good reason to be ebullient. His record-breaking property tax increases have been largely forgotten because Gotham has been going through very good times. Crime continues to decline, racial tensions have been reduced, and a booming stock market–the Dow hitting one record high after another–has produced a tsunami of spending. The housing market is so hot that in Brooklyn there are condos going for more than a million dollars just a few feet from the site of a new jail. In the words of a Brooklyn realtor “We don’t care about jails. We just care about parking.”
Bloomberg’s contribution to the good times has been limited but consequential. Most importantly, he appointed Ray Kelly police commissioner and then largely stayed out of his way. Kelly has driven crime below the levels of the Giuliani years, and his innovative Operation Atlas anti-terrorism program has been a major success, despite a reduction in the size of the police force. The welfare rolls didn’t explode, as some feared, and New Yorkers generally have sense that the city is reasonably well run.
New York is going through a sweet stretch, and, naturally, Bloomberg has reaped the reward. But Bloomberg has added a good deal in the way of artificial sweeteners. His lavish public and private spending–the city budget is growing at twice the rate of inflation, and in 2004 alone he gave out $140 million of his own money in donations to 800 worthy and vote-rich organizations–has bought a great deal of good will.
Yet, when you look for Bloomberg’s distinctive achievements to support a presidential run, they’re hard to find. When you ask Gothamites about Bloomberg’s accomplishments, they’re brought up short. Some, if their children aren’t in the public schools, will mention education, but most draw a blank. Bloomberg’s greatest accomplishment has been to continue the Giuliani crime and welfare reforms. But when it comes to his own initiatives, 311 excepted, it’s been a different matter.
…There is a lengthy list of Bloomberg failures. Among them: In his first term he virtually ignored the rebuilding of Ground Zero to push for the building of a stadium on the West Side of Manhattan in order to draw the 2012 Olympics. The stadium won’t be built, if it had it would have created massive congestion; the Olympics aren’t coming and the limited progress at Ground Zero has come from the state. Homelessness is at or near record levels, subway service is declining, and debt is piling up at a rapid pace. Police Commissioner Kelly’s achievements are threatened by a Bloomberg-administration negotiated contract that starts rookie cops at a paltry $25,000 a year, and thus has left the NYPD with only a quarter of the recruits it needs. Bloomberg has been too busy promoting himself to note, until recently, that New York is losing ground as a financial center to both London and Hong Kong. If that slide continues, it will, along with the massive debt he’s accumulated, be part of his lasting legacy.
Bloomberg has recently unveiled a new anti-poverty plan to be initially financed by himself, George Soros, and the Rockefeller Fund among others. Modeled on programs in Brazil and Mexico, it will bribe children to come to school, take tests, get a library card, and pass exams. It will also help demoralize those kids who do the right thing but aren’t getting “paid” for it. But there’s no secret as to why Bloomberg, thinks this will work. He’s done a brilliant job of buying political support–why wouldn’t money be the key to buying educational success and support for his presidential run as well?
Leaving his generous charitable donations aside, Bloomberg spent $160 million to be twice elected mayor of New York. In his 2005 re-election bid he spent more on consultants than his opponent spent on his entire campaign. Bloomberg, who is estimated to be worth at least $6 billion, has talked about spending a billion dollars on a presidential run. The logic seems straight forward. He’s done a great job politically by buying the backing of supposedly hard-bitten New Yorkers–imagine how well he probably assumes such a scheme could work on the rubes out there beyond the Hudson.
I had been very agnostic about whether or not Bloomberg would actually jump in up until he started his media blitz earlier this week. I assumed that he liked the attention he got by the media by dipping his toe in the water every couple of months. But with the New York Times revelation this morning that Bloomberg’s aides have been secretly gaming out a 2008 presidential run from more than 2 years, it appears that this is the real deal.
Much has been written about what effects his entry will have on the race. Will he be a Democratic spoiler or a Republican one? Is he another George Wallace/John Anderson/Ross Perot etc. in the making? And on and on. This passage struck me as quite extraordinary:
Mr. Bloomberg told associates that he was closely studying the 1992 presidential campaign of H. Ross Perot, the wealthy Texan and friend who drew 19 percent of the vote as an independent, to figure out how much a race in 2008 would cost.
The aides said there was division in his camp about whether he should run for president. Kevin Sheekey, who was the architect behind Mr. Bloomberg’s unlikely mayoral bid in 2001, urged Mr. Bloomberg to run for president over steaks and drinks at a dinner at Dylan Prime to celebrate his re-election in 2005. Others argued that it was an impossible task and a waste of Mr. Bloomberg’s reputation and resources.
Mr. Bloomberg was described as conflicted about a national run, intrigued by the possibility of winning the presidency but telling friends that he would not run unless he was certain that he could win. And he did not want to go down in history as a spoiler who contributed to the defeat of a Democrat like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, he has told friends.
“He will not run to be a spoiler,” said Ester Fuchs, a special adviser to Mr. Bloomberg in his first term who remains close to the administration.
So, I wonder, what if everyone has been asking the wrong questions? What if Bloomberg really is “in it to win it”? I don’t see how that could happen unless either the Democratic or Republican nominee completely self destructed in the general election.
He obviously has the resources to buy his own national organization, flood all the markets with his ads, and keep banging the “Washington is broken” slogan (which seems to resonant with the population considering both Congress and the President have approval ratings not seen in American politics since the Watergate era). But will all that enable him to essentially buy his way to the White House?
Time for another riveting Q&A session with your pal, DaveG. Many thanks, of course, to Dean Barnett for coming up with this format so that I could rip it off.
Q: You really are shameless, aren’t you?
A: Quite.
Q: So is this going to be another one of your pessimistic pieces on how the GOP is doomed in ’08? What is it with you and gloom?
A: Well, I am an Anglophile, you know.
Q: What?
A: What, now?
Q: Never mind. So what do you think of all of this Bloomberg nonsense?
A: I think 2008 may be the year that a new type of Republican…wait for it…blooms!
Q: I don’t get it.
A: You wouldn’t.
Q: Okay, wait, so a Bloomberg run is going to create a new type of Republican? That’s insane. Bloomberg isn’t even a Republican. He’s always been a liberal Democrat in drag.
A: True, Bloomie is a liberal Democrat. But like significant third party candidates before him, the Bloomster may end up being the protest candidate for a certain kind of disaffected voter — in this case, the “Bloomberg Republicans.”
(more…)
