As everyone knows by now, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has officially left the Republican party and has declared himself an independent. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before determining (correctly) that the best way for him to win the NYC mayor’s race was to run on the less populated GOP side. By most accounts, he’s been quite a good mayor (Bob and other NYC denizens, feel free to chime in).
The speculation, of course, is that he’s preparing to launch an independent bid for president. He’s a billionaire (that’s with a “b”), so there’s no question that he’s got the money, nor can anyone seriously doubt that he’s willing to spend a lot of it on getting himself elected — he shattered all previous NYC records in the last mayor’s race, despite weak opposition. He is appealingly libertarian on social issues — for instance, if he jumped in, he’d instantly be the highest-profile candidate to back full marriage equality. He seems generally sensible on other major issues (e.g., environmental) as well, at least as far as I know. And he makes as good a case as anyone (and better than most) about being someone who won’t feed into Washington’s partisan gridlock — he plays well with heavy hitters from both parties.
In short, no one is writing this guy off as a contender, at least not yet. Heck, I’d give him a serious look. After all, he grew up in Medford!
Questions:
1. Can he win?
2. Should he win?
3. Who does his candidacy (if it happens) help, and who does it hurt?
4. Who should his running mate be?
Bloomberg’s middle name is expediency. I don’t think we need another His Expediency at the national level, candidly. He was a Democrat until the field became too crowded in 2001, so he switched to Republican. Just last year, he said these words during his run for mayor: “I couldn’t be prouder to run on the Republican ticket and be a Republican.” So which is it? What’s happened between then and now? No thanks.
What difference does it make if he says he is a Republican or says he is a Democrat. What matters is what he does, and he’s done very well as Mayor of NYC and taken lots of great positions on important issues as diverse as marriage and gun control. There are a lot of “Democrats,” who aren’t nearly as progressive.
I think the point Iris is trying to make is that purely expedient people are generaly less trustworthy. Today, they might be on your side, so long as popular opinion, or the path of least resistance leads the way you want it to.
<
p>
For my part, as Sam Seaborn once said, the first thing I look for is a mind at work. Whether Bloomberg has the requisite gray matter remains to be seen. But I’ll look into it.
Who cares is he is loyal to a political party, which is by definition made up of hacks? I’d rather he be a good elected official, which he reportedly has been, and in spades.
<
p>
And he is smarter than Nader, because he managed to use the party hacks in order to actually get elected, rather than just railing impotently as a spoiler.
I care whether or not someone is trustworthy, and as a politician, if you can’t find a way to decide whether or not you’re a loyal Republican raising millions for George Bush’s reelection one year and not a loyal Republican the next, I want to know why. I want to know why someone has changed his political affiliation three times in six years. You may choose to ignore that, but many will not.
<
p>
In your world, the world where, apparently, expediency doesn’t present a problem, you’re welcome to vote for him. But don’t be a hypocrit about it. If you criticized Romney for expediency or flip-flopping or being an opportunist (and I don’t know if you did–maybe you like him too?) then hold Bloomberg to the same standard. If you criticized Lieberman for bolting, hold Bloomberg to the same standard. If you find the behavior of Romney and Lieberman, both of whom have expediency fueling their political decisions making, admirable and worthy of your vote, go right ahead. To quote you, who cares?
<
p>
Oh, and BTW:
<
p>
<
p>
Oh really? In what universe?
like Romney’s, are more important (IMHO, anyway) than those on party affiliation.
<
p>
That said, potroast raises an excellent point downthread about why Bloomberg may be damaged goods.
is somehow substantively different than raising millions of dollars for Bush’s reelection? I should have thought my comment about his aggressive fundraising would have suggested Bloomberg’s leanings. Those millions weren’t for party favors, they were not-so-tacit support for perpetuating the Republican agenda, not the least of which is this obscene war. Bloomberg, as a bit of an odd duck, could have easily maintained a low profile in the presidential election, but he didn’t–for a reason.
<
p>
Bloomberg likes to straddle the fence so that he can maneuver himself in the most advantageous, ambitious way.
…there is a difference between switching party affiliation for purposes of expediency (Bloomberg would probably never have won the Dem party nomination for mayor of NYC) and switching views on substantive policy matters (as Romney, obviously, has done, as have most of the major party contenders).
<
p>
Do you know of any substantive policy matters Bloomberg has switched his views on, whether or not for expediency?
… for the GOP an endorsment of their platform?
Is that he switched from being a Red Sox fan at birth to a Yankee booster. Now, I’ll admit it would be tough to be the Mayor of NYC and root for the Red Sox, but it still rankles. Other than that, he has a more impressive resume than Obama, broader appeal than Clinton, and better management chops than any of the Republican candidates. The evangelicals and the militia/NRA people are the only major constituencies that will viscerally dislike Bloomberg, I think, and it appears that the Bush coalition of religionists and corporations, which never delivered a large majority, has pretty much splintered anyway — so much for the theocrats. An independent candidate, however, cannot win the Presidency in MHO: the Parties have sunk their talons too deep into the fabric our our democracy for even Bloomberg’s billions to give him a real chance. Thus, if he runs as an independent, his biggest impact will likely be as a spoiler — for whom, who knows? The really interesting story, I think, would be if he decides to run as a Democrat.
<
p>
Hmmm… When did Lightiris join the NRA?
but I read that comment as being about divisions and constituencies within the GOP.
Read the preceding sentence again:
<
p>
<
p>
Sounds like he’s making a case for bipartisan appeal to me. I think Ryan’s reading may be okay. At any rate, there are certainly other constituencies who will have no part of an indie/hybrid Bloomberg run and they’re not on the GOP side of the Great Divide.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
He’s From Medford. Go Bloomberg
<
p>
There are many medford natives or off-spring of Medford natives working for Bloomberg’s businesses.
<
p>
Boston and Mass would doo quite well with “a nice jewish boy from medford whose mother still lives there and is active in the Temple” kind of guy in the White House.
<
p>
This is OUR GUY!
But only if he pulls a McMurtry and promises John Walsh that he’ll enroll as a Democrat after he wins the election! đŸ™‚
That’s all I need to know.
<
p>
<
p>
http://www.villagevo…
Thanks, Potroast.
but actions speak much louder. Bloomberg raised over $4 million for Bush’s reelection, as I pointed out earlier. Perhaps there are people here who are only swayed by words, but, personally, I’m more action-oriented. Four millions dollars bought a lot of advertiszing, blitzing, and propaganda for the Republican War Machine. It’s his actions, not his words that matter most.
Upthread you asked rhetorically:
<
p>
Are they the same or are we supposed to choose one over the other? Are there degrees involved? Hey, I’ll give your comment a ‘7.5’ if it makes any difference đŸ˜‰
I was taking exception to the suggestion that Bloomberg’s words in the Village Voice piece were more important or relevant (“THAT is a good point”) than the fact (my concerns) that Bloomberg raised $4 million for Bush.
<
p>
Something must have gotten lost in translation, and it wasn’t Bill Murray.
Bloomberg Television, a financial station/cable network. Nice to have your own network when running for office.
…I doubt that Bloomberg’s company’s ownership would help him very much among the common voter.
I frequently get my morning news from Bloomberg so maybe I see it as a more major source than others do.
that is important to me. sucked the suckers dry? i’m not attacking, but i do have a knee jerk negative response to filthy (?) richness. it usually doesn’t happen by being nice or fair, etc.
…Bloomberg appears to have made his billions by being an astute businessman in private industry. Somewhat in contrast to Ross Perot, who made his billions as a government contractor.
And it don’t smell purdy. Bloomberg is as much of an anchorless opportunist as Romney, but with a wider possible appeal. He’s giving me that uncomfortable “Nader” feeling in the pit of my stomach.
<
p>
If we want to overturn the fundie-stacked federal judiciary and clean the Bush-appointed whackjobs out frm their hiding places, I can’t see how an opportunist billionaire has the same incentive to do that as an authentic Democrat, any authentic Democrat, who can take the nomination. I wonder if the public’s utter Bush-fatigue might help us steer swing voters away from Bloomberg: “He isn’t committed to cleaning up Bush’s mistakes. We are.”
<
p>
Seriously, my answer to number four pretty much wraps up how I feel about Bloomberg. However, his running would obviously put a damper on Guiliani – he’ll certainly out Guliani Guliani. There are Democrats that would follow him too, but not that many.
<
p>
Personally, while I’m very pro-Israel, I’m not very Pro-AIPAC – and I think Bloomberg’s connections to AIPAC sort of scare me away. I’m not a fan of Neo-Conservatism as a foreign relations view-point and that’s what they seem to be all about. So, I’ll take a pass.
he knew who he needed to be to win NYC and he became that person. I am very skeptical of the third way folks like our other beloved local – Sam Waterston. They are intelligent and reasonable. But, if they are so concerned-why are they not railing against the Bush administration.
<
p>
As to who he hurts most – it would be Rudy obviously in the primary. In the general I think he would hurt the Democrats most because the people that he would siphon off would most likely be from blue-leaning counties.
the primary most even though they arent running head to head since Blooberg is no longer a Republican. A lot of Rudy supporters would just not vote in the primary.
From Rightwingnuthouse.
<
p>
<
p>
As I remember Mark Green spent about $16 million and that by itself was some kind of record at the time for a non-national election. Bloomberg only beat him by a point or two.
<
p>
I don’t remember the exact story (and I don’t have my copy with me), but in Mark Green’s book he related a story about an interview that Bloomberg had during the campaign. Bloomberg was asked something to the effect “Since you are capable of personally spending hundreds of millions of dollars, how much money would be ridiculous to spend on your campaign?” He didn’t really answer at first but when pressed, as I remember, he said something like $27 million. He spent over $73 million.
You’re correct. In 2001, Bloomberg spent $73 million dollars, but only 50% to 48%. He outspent Green by 5 to 1. But in 2005 he won with 58.4% of the vote. The Democrat only received 39% of the vote.
Actually two, Senator Clinton, who I support, has always been on the frontlines of these issues and now Mayor Bloomberg. Unlike some of his NYC predecessors who shunned contact with other mayors as beneath him, Bloomberg formed Mayors Against Illegal Guns with Mayor Menino, recently hosted a meeting of Mayors on climate control issues, and generally has been a colleague to other mayors from cities large and small. Guiliani, by contrast, temporarily pulled NYC out of the US Conference of Mayors because they were too critical, in his opinion, of the current Administration.
<
p>
And he takes the subway to work!
<
p>
Note to Bob — I think Bloomberg actually called himself a “Boston Braves” fan in one interview, but probably Mayor Menino is right when he recently said of Bloomberg on a Sox broadcast, “he really doesn’t like baseball, not like Guiliani, who sits next to the dugout”.
<
p>
PS — Yanks losing to Rockies in 9th as I write, double digit lead back?