Will Bloomberg Spend A Billion Dollars To Make Broder Happy?

So Michael Bloomberg is contemplating an independent unaffiliated run for the Presidency. The question is why. He has no chance, absolutely none, of even carrying one state, much less winning. So what is Bloomberg up to? Is he starved for attention? Has he lost his mind? Is there some big issue that draws him in?

Let's first state the obvious - Michael Bloomberg has the political charisma of a potato. Even worse for us, he has no entertainment value. Saturday Night Live can't do a funny parody of him. He is fairly nondescript. Indeed, I wager that not 10% of the country knows who he is. This is not the bombastic Rudy we're talking about.

So the question must be, after all the guy made 5 billion dollars or some such obscene amount, what's in it for him?

I see nothing in it for him personally. I suppose this is an ego trip. How much will he spend on an ego trip? Maybe not all that much if you think about it. David Broder is esctatic and will by writing a weekly column on Bloomberg now. The folks on Hardball, including the usually estimable Chuck Todd, made utter fools of themselves discussing Bloomberg last night. Larry King will no doubt put him on as a weekly guest as he did for Perot in 1992 (worth remembering that King's show now is hardly what it was in 1992, pre-Fox).

So the ego stroking Bloomberg seems to be fishing for will largely be a cost-free exercise. Indeed, he has already sold the Media on the idea that he won't decide whether to run until after the nominees of the two parties are chosen, which means March 2008 at the earliest. So Bloomberg gets to be stroked for free for about a year.

And then he breaks Broder's heart. It will be funny to read Broder explain why there is no 3rd Party candidate after telling us how ripe the country is for it. And hopefully, after thst, Unity 08 can die its deserving death. The unseriousness of the folks who treat this seriously is manifest. I am curious if anyone in the Media will have the guts to say this Emperor has no clothes (the Emperor being the idea of a viable 3rd Party candidate.)

< State Chair of Giuliani Campaign Indicted on Cocaine Charge | Need a Passport? Stand in Line >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why do you think he can't win a single state? (none / 0) (#1)
    by lilybart on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:50:42 AM EST
    I live in NYC and Bloomberg is the only non-Dem I have ever voted for in my life. He is not perfect, but at least he is on our side on the social issues of human dignity and rights for women and gays. He has never had any of the racial issues that Giuliani had with the police department's behaviour. (The GOP convention arrests were wrong, I hated that too.)

    I think people want someone who has NO ties to any past or present government. This is why Obama is so popular. I think that just being a black man makes him an outsider with none of the baggage that Hillary has, or even Edwards.

    Don't forget, Americans WORSHIP money and businessmen. Which is why only a few of us really care about CEO salaries and the estate tax. They just might find a 5 billion dollar God in Bloomberg.

    Iraq, Iraq, Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:56:21 AM EST
    and Bloomberg stands with Lieberman on Iraq.

    Yep Here Is An Example (none / 0) (#4)
    by talex on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:21:46 AM EST
    of the problem. Lilybart is a fine example of what Devilstower describes in his excellent dairy over at dkos.

    You see the Repubs are jumping up and down with glee over the possibilities of Bloomberg. Why? Well as Devilstower put it:

    A President McCain might never get 50% of the vote, but if he can get into office with only 34%...  

    Yep Lilybart represents the split Dem vote that could hand the WH to the Repubs. Nader, oops, I mean Bloomberg could cost us the election.

    Yesterday I said that if we wanted a Progressive Candidate then the netroots would have to have to rally around either Edwards or Obama but not both because a split netroots vote in the primaries would all but hand the nomination to Clinton. And as I suggested that is what will probably happen. The netroots will split their vote and Clinton will be our nominee.

    Now imagine a Clinton, Bloomberg choice on the Left matched up with the Repub Candidate. Overall the Left would still get the most popular votes. But electoral votes? You get the picture.


    Right now, the Republican campaigns are looking at Blomberg's potential entry as a clear sign that God is on their side.

    Yeah and the Lilybarts of the world - those same ones who will split the Edward-Obama vote and hand the primary to Clinton are the same ones who will split the Dem vote and hand the election to the Repubs.

    And no matter, in both cases, how much you explain to them that their split vote will hand the election to the person they DO NOT WANT winning - they will do it anyway.

    Result: 10+ years in Iraq - - And Bomb bomb bomb Iran

    Result: No healthcare for all - - No alternative energy policy - - More tax cuts for the rich - - Keep shipping those American jobs overseas

    2008 could be the year of the Lily-Brats, er, Lilybarts.


    The amend the system (4.00 / 1) (#8)
    by RustedView on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:47:00 AM EST
    Look, I'm not a huge fan of Bloomberg, I don't really know alot about him, but I am sick and tired of this droll.

    A lot of people on the left like to claim that Ralph Nader cost Gore the election in 2000.  That he took votes from Gore.

    I'm sorry, but those votes went to Nader, not Gore, which meant they were Nader's.  This is the same argument that you are making now.  If people vote for Bloomberg instead of Clinton or Obama or McCain or Guiliani, it is because THEY VOTED from Bloomberg.  It is because they agree with him, his policies, and his outlook on the future.  Can you claim that all the people who vote for the Democrat do it because they support them, rather than oppose someone else?  I'm tired of opposing, I want leaders to lead with a plan, not go to office because they aren't the other guy!

    If you are afraid that a McCain or Rudy G can win with 34% of the national vote, then by all means let's reform the system.  I personally like the French two ballot system, it guarantees that at least 50% of the country supports a particular nominee.  Heck, we could even end up choosing between a Democrat and a Green candidate for President, no Republicans in the mix.  Of course it involves a reduction in American laziness in order to vote TWICE in one year.

    But, more to the point, I am really sick and tired of Democrats attacking anyone who doesn't follow their Party Line standard.  Look what they have done to Greens and candidates from other parties.  The Democrats are so afraid of democracy, of people expressing their true choice, that they have wanted to prevent people from having a real choice.  The Republicans have also been guilty of this, but it doesn't make it right.

    Honestly, if Bloomberg runs I will give him the same consideration as other canidates, no more, no less.  But rest assured that if I vote for a third party candidate, that person is not "taking away" votes from a Democrat or a Republican, because that vote didn't belong the Democrat or the Republican.


    Great rebuttal! (none / 0) (#13)
    by lilybart on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    There is a saying in NYC:  If someone steals your cab, it wasn't your cab.

    Oh please..... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:38:28 AM EST
    Blame Nader, blame Bloomberg...blame blame blame everybody but the Democratic party for the discontent they've helped sow by their ineffectiveness and corruption.

    Oh please (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:52:02 AM EST
    Bloomberg ain't gonna run. And if he does, he ain't going to cost Dem NY.

    Stop being hysterical.


    Why the personal attack? (none / 0) (#12)
    by lilybart on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    I never said I would vote for him for President over Obama or Edwards or Hillary.  AND I am on the fence between Obama and Edwards, but I would support whichever one can beat Hillary.

    Sorry to say you don't know me as well as you think you do.

    But then, you do this to a lot of people here.

    I only asked you why you thought he couldn't win a single state. I explained why I think Americans might be interested in him because they love money more than anything and really love those who make money.

    My turn: You really are an a**hole.


    Mistake? (none / 0) (#14)
    by talex on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 02:10:47 PM EST
    I only asked you why you thought he couldn't win a single state.

    I assume you are addressing Armando? He is the one you asked "why you thought he couldn't win a single state".

    I think you might have posted under my post by mistake?


    Heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 02:19:25 PM EST
    It is true that she asked me the question but it is also true that you attsacked her.

    So I am not sorry to say, in this instance, you are the a**hole in question.


    Well As You Already (none / 0) (#18)
    by talex on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:48:16 PM EST
    knew - and can see from lilybart's followup post it is you who she rightly describes in her last sentence:

    My turn: You really are an a**hole.

    And then this:

    I never said I would vote for him for President over Obama or Edwards or Hillary.  AND I am on the fence between Obama and Edwards, but I would support whichever one can beat Hillary.

    Sorry to say you don't know me as well as you think you do.

    But then, you do this to a lot of people here.

    Nuff said.


    the last comment was to Big Tent Dem (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilybart on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    BTD does slam a lot of people here, personally, for not agreeing with him.

    Big Tent---I think not!


    Yes, oops (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilybart on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:00:55 PM EST
    sorry for the confusion

    Cuz he can't. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:48:10 AM EST
    Name a state you think he will win.

    You think he beats Hillary in New York? You think Hillary won't kill him in NYC?

    Well, imo, you are not being realistic.


    Was Bill going to win any States? (none / 0) (#20)
    by RustedView on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:26:25 PM EST
    When Bill first entered the democratic primary way back when no one thought he could win anything, so, I guess you never know.

    Anyway, we are over a year away from the General, to ask "Name a state you think he will win." is a bit premature.

    As someone noted before, he has good name recognition, but a lot of people haven't heard his policies.  I believe people may be ready for a change, [and may even be reluctant to vote Democratic seeing as they have been so effective in passing legislation (and making sure it becomes law) and ending the war].  Just a thought.

    [What follows below is just a thought experiment]
    Someone suggested to me a theory that could be plausible, though I'm not sure it would play out in any effective manner.  Imagine a 4 or 5 way race.  If a Dem is nominated who really isn't anti-war (you can fill in names yourself), do you really think the anti-war left is going to sit back and say "Oh, I guess that is what we have to vote for"?

    And if a person like Guiliani is nominated from the Republicans, do you think the christian right will go along with that?

    Assuming all candidates take electoral college votes, at least some.  Figure, the anti-war left takes at least Vermont, the christian Right candidate takes one of the many misguided southern states.  Just dwell for a moment on what that would mean to the future of the electoral college if an election was actually thrown to the Congress to decide.
    [End fun little thought experiment]

    Either way, I could see Bloomberg taking at least one or two States after people get to know him.  I'd put my money that he would play better in States that have started to lean left (or really center), but are still hesitant at the thought of voting for Democrats.


    Shoot..... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    I'd vote for him if Kubby doesn't get on the ballot...and I'm not even a fan of his stint as mayor.

    Maybe he just cares about the country being led down the tubes by special interest beholdenD's and R's.

    I'd vote for Genghis Khan running as an independent...the #1 problem with govt. is the D and R monopoly, imo.

    Blooming (none / 0) (#5)
    by koshembos on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:24:49 AM EST
    Bloomberg is a good mayor. He doesn't kill black people as a joy ride or otherwise. He is pleasant, articulate and smart. I guess he must be a potato and obviously must be associated with a moron such as Broder.

    It seems to me that the wiser approach to a potential Bloomberg run is just wait and don't comment. Otherwise, we look shrill, unwise and opinionated to a fault.

    What do you have against potatoes? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:50:49 AM EST
    Since I did not comment on Bloomberg's performance as Mayor I find your comment strange.

    The system (none / 0) (#6)
    by Al on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    is such that you have to have access to obscene amounts of money to play. This is known in the political science literature as a filthystinkinrichocracy.

    65% of registered voters know Bloomberg (none / 0) (#16)
    by joejoejoe on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:45:50 PM EST
    ...or at least know who his name. I doubt 10% can name a single policy of Bloomberg's but the same could be said of many voters and politicians.

    From a 6/20/07 Pew Poll on Bloomberg (via TPM)

    Have you heard of Michael Bloomberg?
    65% Yes
    33% No
    2% Don't know (these 2% who don't know if they have heard of Bloomberg must be Gonzales hires at DoJ)

    The 65% name recognition is better than Romney, Fred Thompson or Bill Richardson.


    charisma (none / 0) (#19)
    by diogenes on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:04:57 PM EST
    Hillary kind of lacks charisma too, but you don't see her scorned on this site.  All that happens here is that people try to spin things to promote the election of Hillary or Edwards-thus, pound Rudy, Obama, etc every chance possible.  You can predict it like clockwork.

    You forgot Dodd. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 01:25:11 AM EST