Mister Bloomberg goes to Washington?

Michael Bloomberg's not-so-surprising decision to bolt the republican party is being widely portrayed as a first step in an eventual Presidential run by our billionaire mayor.

There are two ways of looking at such a candidacy. One would involve taking into account his vast personal fortune, which would allow him to run a national campaign without having to engage in the drudgery of raising money. Given that candidates generally have to spend half their time, or more, raising funds, that's a huge advantage in itself. He also has something that previous independent candidates did not, which is a solid record of governance. However one may feel about specific policies of the Bloomberg administration, he's done a reasonably good job of running New York City. As far as technocrats go, Mayor Mike is accomplished.

On the flip side of the coin is the long and dispiriting history of independent or third-party candidates, lucidly laid out by Devilstower on Daily Kos. One might add that Mike Bloomberg was lucky in running only against opponents, Mark Green and Freddy Ferrer, who managed to be, in the former case, divisive, in the latter, divisive and an incompetent candidate and notoriously uninspiring.

What I don't see is a natural constituency or issues base for an independent. There will always be some resonance to a message of pox on both your major-party houses, certainly if its combined with a quarter of a billion dollars in television advertising and a record in government that, while perhaps uninspiring, speaks of competence. After the Bush years, competence carries a premium; people would like to know, in a desire that cuts across ideological barriers, that their government is being capably administered. But that doesn't provide clarity on the moral questions the country is asking - how to get out of Iraq, how to fix the health care system, how to properly balance liberty and security. Competence will carry you only so far when the nation wants to know how these questions will be answered, not just that any answers will be provided in a reasonably professional manner.

The newest polling bears out this analysis. From Quinnipiac:

In a hypothetical all-New York presidential race, Sen. Hillary Clinton wins with 43 percent of voters statewide, followed by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani with 29 percent and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with 16 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

That's an interesting result on a number of levels, certainly for this: Giuliani attracts the New York generic republican vote, which is roughly a third of the vote, as was demonstrated in the last election. Bloomberg's support, if you start with the results of November, comes entirely out of the Democratic column. Alternatively, the prior Quinnipiac poll, showing a 50% to 42% Clinton lead in a head-to-head matchup with Giuliani, speaks to the idea that Bloomberg could attract support from both sides of the aisle.

Historically, no independent candidate has ever won the Presidency. If that should happen some day, the nation would be in uncharted waters, for example, on the question of how such a President would navigate legislation through Congress. However, we're not at that point yet, nor will we be, I think. What is clear is this: independent candidacies can radically reshuffle the electoral deck for the major parties. Some on the right still blame Ross Perot for Bill Clinton's victory in 1992, erroneously in my view; while Democrats have cause to look with disgust at Ralph Nader, may he burn in hell forever, for handing the White House to George W. Bush.

What seems clear, however, from Quinnipiac's fortuitously timed poll, is this: Mayor Mike does not have enough of a base, even in New York where people are intimately familiar with his record and persona, to win the Presidency. History suggests that this will not change. However, history also suggests that he might well give it a go, and decisively affect the outcome in 2008. Republicans are, and have cause to be, unhappy with the field of candidates from their party. Some Democrats, if saddled with a nominee Hillary, might very well come to feel the same way. Certainly, the junior Senator's unprecedented and persistent negatives at this stage of the campaign are giving many Democratic strategists pause. Given that, in this most recent poll, her support vis-à-vis last November drops twenty points, they have some reason for hesitancy.

It's very early yet in this Presidential cycle, and the fat lady isn't even in the taxi to the opera house yet. But if Mike Bloomberg decides to run, all bets on the outcome in November 2008 are officially off. He has plenty of the only currency that matters in American politics - good old-fashioned greenbacks, a billion or so. Watch this space.

(Xpost @ TDG)

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |