So who wins and who loses if, as seems likely, Michael Bloomberg runs for president? I think David Frum has it mostly right. The losers will be Bloomberg himself (he'll probably waste about $100 million and end up with 2 or 3 percent of the vote) and the charities who likely will miss out on at some of the money Bloomberg devotes to his vanity campaign.
And the winners? That's easy. As Frum puts it, they are "the consultants, pollsters, and advertising directors who - having failed to get a piece of the action from the major presidential campaigns - will keep their children in private school and themselves in expensive timepieces with Bloomberg's money. Their eyes are already lighting up like London saleswomen when a bored Saudi princess wanders into their shop."
Frum thinks the Democrats will get some benefit from Bloomberg's campaign because his ads will hit the Republican nominee harder than his Democratic counterpart. I suspect that Bloomberg will have no effect on the outcome, but it's too early to assess this question with any confidence.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. It's wonderful to see someone on this blog telling the truth. Bloomberg is the wrong candidate at the right time. It's nothing personal, but America is trying to regain it's identity. The Bush Administration's failure can be summarized in two words, "Affirmative Access". This policy has created the "Two Americas" that is divided and not winning the war. Affirmative Access means the special people can cheat, lie, and steal! Affirmative Access means "It's My Way or The Highway!" Affirmative Access doesn't worry about Social Security, Gas prices, Healthcare, or Endless War. Affirmative Access means your son or daughter doesn't need to serve in the military. John Edwards is a Rebel that scares the Hell out of the Bush administration! Why do you think the Republicans have exclusively attacked him? Edwards has the right message for the best future. 9-11 is a bumpersticker. Why were we not ready that day? If nothing happened since, what happened that day is relevant to the discussion! Bush was reading.
Cecil Jones at 1:52PM on Jun 20th 2007
2. It is interesting that Mr. Bloomberg, formerly a liberal Democrat who became a Republican because it presented an easier path to the NYC Mayoralty than a Democratic primary crowded with traditional and well known pols, now looks to insert himself into a presidential election which more than likely will involve a Clinton. Both of William Jefferson Clinton's elections owed themselves in some part to the presence of a third party candidate. Mr. Clinton never won more than 50% of the vote and was a minority president having both times been elected only with a plurality of the vote. Is it possible that a 3-way election is part of the 2008 Clinton play book? Is it a consciously planned strategy by the liberal community? A joint effort by Bloomberg and Clinton to create a 3-way race in the hope that liberals will know who to vote for but some conservative Republican votes will be lost to entrepeneur and business man Michael Bloomberg?
William Kusterbeck at 2:59PM on Jun 20th 2007
3. It smacks of Ross Perot.
vegastracon at 4:00PM on Jun 20th 2007
4. Our thanks to Paulie for providing us with the perfect example of whistling past the graveyard -- if Bloomberg enters the race, OF COURSE it will hurt the Republicans. The Democrats are highly energized to win in 2008 and quite happy with their selection of candidates -- with no hint that if the party picks one, supporters of the others will not vote Democratic in November. The Republicans are demoralized, unenthused by their current field of candidates, and the loons that comprise the GOP base are making all sorts of threats to jump ship if the nominee is insufficiently looney.
Indeed, it is easy to anticipate where Bloomberg would get a lot of support -- from disaffected moderate supporters of Guiliani, turned off when the GOP fundamentalists refuse to support a candidate who doesn't hate gays.
That being said, I doubt Bloomberg will run -- Perot did it for ego, but Bloomberg would only do it if he thought he had a serious third party shot at the White House. He doesn't.
Note to Kusterbeck: Exit polling in '92 and '96 make it clear that without Perot in the race Clinton still would have won the presidency. Thus, your weird conspiracy theory that implies that the Clintons were somehow behind Perot's actual and Bloomberg's possible campaigns is based on... uh, well, nothing actually. But you do look jaunty in that tin foil beret.
richter at 4:41PM on Jun 20th 2007
5. Paul don't underestimate Bloomberg's political savvy. When he announced for Mayor in 2001, his bid was dismissed as quixotic by most political observers. These experts made the same argument that he would be taken for a ride by consultants, pollsters and New York City Republican pols interested in getting their hands on some cash to rescue their financially strained party.
He thrashed political veteran Mark Green with an unlikely coalition of older Catholic ethnic voters in Queens, Staten Island and Brooklyn, well to do Manhattan liberals and a higher than expected vote among Puerto Ricans disaffected by Green's victory over Fernando Ferrer in the Democatic primary.
Bloomberg spends his money wisely and runs mistake free campaign operations. Isn't it conceivable given his success as a businessman and Mayor that he could run as well as Ross Perot if either or both of the two major party candidates turn out to be duds.
George Chimes at 5:30PM on Jun 20th 2007
6. I think Bloomberg will take more votes from democrats than republicans. On a number of issues he'll be to the left of the democratic candidate. That being said, I think most of his votes will come in states that the dems will be carrying comfortably anyway, like NY, CA and New England. I can't see him actually affecting the outcome in any state.
buzz at 5:00PM on Aug 31st 2007
7. This is hilarious. If Bloomberg runs, the charities lose? What kind of assinine comment is that? Is there ANY proof that Bloomberg would give less or more money depending on his status in the race? How are you even a lawyer? Do you understand logic?
Matt Lawyer at 4:51PM on Jun 21st 2007
8. Buzz writes: "On a number of issues he'll be to the left of the democratic candidate."
Okay Buzz -- name any position by any currently running Democrat and explain how Bloomberg is to the left of that position.
richter at 12:25PM on Jun 22nd 2007
9. I think Bloomberg is a screwball. Was he a Democrate before he was a Republican or a Republican before he was a Democrate? OR was he an Independent before he was a Democrate or a .....forget it, what he is an opportunist.
Willet at 11:03AM on Jun 23rd 2007
10. How interesting! If the choices are Hillary, Guiliani and Bloomberg, we will be choosing a "switcher". Hillary was a "Goldwater Republican" before becoming a Democrat while a student at Wellesley College. Guiliani was a Democrat before becoming a Republican and Bloomberg was a Democrat before becoming a Republican and now an Independent.
Catherine at 1:40PM on Jun 24th 2007