home

Why Bloomberg Ain't Running

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:21:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Q poll for New York:

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.
In a head-to-head matchup, Sen. Clinton tops Giuliani 52 - 37 percent, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds.

Can we stop the silliness now? These are three pols everybody in New York knows. Bloomie would get 16%. The idea of Bloomberg running for President is a non-starter.

< A New Improved Emerging Dem Majority? | Poking The Right With Castro >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why Bloomberg Ain't Running | 26 comments (26 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Bloomberg loses in 3 way to Hillary and Rudy (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by BigMitch on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:24:50 PM EST
    But that is only before he spends a half billion dollars. Nobody knows what effect that kind of money can have on the election.

    However, I personally believe he is a good man, and therefore, he will stay out of the race for fear of giving it to the Republican, especially if the Republican in question is Rudy.

    Please visit the Schapira blog, What we know so far ...

    ... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!

    I think his national cap is 15% (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:42:57 PM EST
    He can not win a state.

    He will not run.

    Parent

    You don't think it will matter if the choice is (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:54:53 PM EST
    between the Caucasian woman whose very name invokes invective, a black man, and a wealthy Caucasian man who has serve two terms as mayor of NYC?  

    Parent
    Good Man? (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:51:24 PM EST
    However, I personally believe he is a good man, and therefore, he will stay out of the race for fear of giving it to the Republican, especially if the Republican in question is Rudy.

    I would say that he is a good businessman. He will crunch the numbers in a responsible way and figure out that he cannot win the Presidency.  But if he determines that his run will significantly increase his business prospects, he will run.

    I don't think that he wants to be a Senator.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#1)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    Typical snarkiness...

    I'm sure he has name recognition, but to the people in Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, etc...he's just a name.

    While I agree he has absolutely no shot at winning I would say the same the same about Gravel, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Kucinich (not to mention the others on the R side of the ballot).

    We're in a horserace and these stories are there to be covered. Time will tell.

    Has anyone even suggested he can win? I haven't read that.

    There are a lot of people who want a Ross Perot without the nuttiness...

    Everyone you named (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:38:10 AM EST
    is an announced candidate for President and will get not 1/50th of the coverage Bloomberg will get.

    You make my point.

    Parent

    Give the guy a break. He just changed (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:33:20 AM EST
    parties, what, yesterday?

    It's only silly if he wants to win (none / 0) (#4)
    by roy on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:39:29 AM EST
    Maybe he wants to use a presidential campaign just to build his reputation.  He can throw his ideas out there and build his image as whatever, without the risk of having to act on those ideas and failing.

    The old expression is "you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?".  Bloomberg gets to talk the talk on a national stage, and he doesn't have to walk the walk.

    Build his reputation by (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:42:10 AM EST
    running for President? Um. ok. That worked out well for Perot.

    Sure thing.

    Parent

    Perot could make blinking look like a bad idea (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    Perot was always a joke, but his run did increase his reputation in breadth if not in quality: a lot more people knew who he was and what he claimed to stand for.  It didn't do him any concrete good, but it'd be a valuable thing for somebody with actual political skill.

    This gives Bloomberg an excuse to talk to the country about things he thinks make him look good.  It also gives him a bit more of an audience than he'd get if he were just holding press conferences as mayor.  Seems straightforward enough.

    That said, I haven't had my coffee yet.

    Parent

    He'll get to do that for a year (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    and not run.

    Which is what he is going to do.

    Parent

    He's termed out. Maybe he wants (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:44:47 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.

    Now that would make sense (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    He could maybe win that.

    Parent
    If he thinks it's fun, he'll run (none / 0) (#10)
    by joejoejoe on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    Spending $1 billion dollars of his own cash to run is like you or I losing a quarter under a seat cushion in the living room couch. It's not nothing in the abstract but it has effectively zero effect on the family budget.

    Bloomberg might love himself so much that he's willing to spend $1 billion dollars to give the people of America a chance to love him too. That has nothing to do with winning or losing. He could run and get 15%, get a free ride in the press and increase the number of people who like Mike to around 45 million people.

    If Bloomberg reflexively believes everyone who doesn't agree with him is a partisan polarizing fool then it's not going to hurt his feelings to have 85% of America choose somebody else.

    Also, if he gets the kind of coverage that McCain got in 2000 it's probably a good business investment for Bloomberg's business interests in the US and globally. I think he's running.

    He didn't make the billions (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    by spending a billion for fun.

    Parent
    Bloomberg Media (none / 0) (#13)
    by joejoejoe on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    'Fun' was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said 'worth his time'. The difference in annual revenues between the #1 (Time-Warner) and #2 (Disney) global media companies is $12 billion dollars.

    If Bloomberg thinks it's altruistic to add his voice to the national debate AND will reap huge amounts of positive publicity for Bloomberg Media it would be worth his time to run - even if he doesn't think there is a high probability of winning.

    Bloomberg takes the same joy that Lieberman has in tut-tutting people for not agreeing with him (ie being partisan) but has none of Lieberman's vanity in being rejected. I don't think Bloomberg would mind having a huge number of people vote against him on his own terms. It would still increase the number of people who hold him in high regard by millions and those people can translate into power that is well worth the $1 billion dollars spent.

    Is $1 billion dollars a lot? It's the difference in annual revenues between #24 McClatchy and #28 Scripps in the '05 AdAge annual revenues. My point is there are billion dollar fluctuations in media value all the time and nobody notices. Why should Bloomberg spending his money be viewed any differently?

    Bloomberg Media is different because it's also a business services company but I read their articles all the time - it's good. Wouldn't a well-received Bloomberg run for President raise the profile of the company and create new opportunities that are perhaps equal to or greater than $1 billion?

    Fun was the wrong word. I meant greater success for Bloomberg, something I think he finds fun indeed. I don't think Richard Branson would spend so much time ballooning just because it's fun - he knows it pays for itself in advertising value for Virgin. Isn't a Presidential run a similar value?


    Parent

    I don;t see how bloomberg Media (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:46:25 PM EST
    gains anything from his running. Explain it to me.


    Parent
    Go from private to publicly traded? (none / 0) (#23)
    by joejoejoe on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:26:53 PM EST
    I don't have any special insights into the business model but isn't the opportunity to make the leap from business media to general media made easier if Michael Bloomberg becomes a well-known, well-respected national (and global) figure?

    Bloomberg LP has revenues around $4.7 billion per year which is mostly from the sale of their market information service. For comparison Yahoo has revenues of around $5.2 billion per year ('05) and Tribune Co. $5.6 billion per year. Bloomberg is privately held.

    One way to capitalize on a run would be if Bloomberg LP goes public after his campaign. Would the share value be higher if Bloomberg ran? Or Bloomberg could try to expand his business interests using his stature as an asset ala Richard Branson. I know Bloomberg is about as exciting as watching paint dry but being widely know as a hypercompetent non-partisan would have it's uses in global dealmaking, no?

    I know $1 billion dollars is a lot of money even to Michael Bloomberg but he's already spent $150 million on two mayoral campaigns. I can't justify spending that kind of money to run for Mayor on purely political grounds but the record shows that Bloomberg was willing to spend it.

    $1 billion is 20% of one year's annual revenue of Bloomberg LP. I know that's not all profit and Bloomberg is the sole owner (he owns about 70%) but it's not that huge an amount when you look at the other monetary figures in his life and business.

    Parent

    correction - Bloomberg is NOT the sole owner (none / 0) (#24)
    by joejoejoe on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    Bloomberg owns 70% of Bloomberg LP.

    Parent
    Neither did Forbes. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 04:11:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Malcom Forbes (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:45:11 PM EST
    earned the money. He didn't run for anything.

    Steve inherited.

    Parent

    And ran as a dilettante, going-nowhere (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:48:38 PM EST
    candidate.

    Parent
    He Fancies Himself (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    An American Silvio Berlusconi whose forbes ranking of the richest is 37 with $11 billion. Bloomberg is 112 at $5.1 billion. The comparison fails when you compare personalities.  Berlusconi is flamboyant and Bloomberg is a nebish.

    Even though he has better name recognition than most of the contenders, almost everyone in the wired and wireless world know the name Bloomberg News, he is a nebish. Zero personality and if Rudy is going to have problems with his crossdressing routine Bloomberg has bigger problems in his closet.  

    Yes, he could draw many voters who are sick of the status quo excepting that Bloomberg is about as status quo as you can get.

    Trump has a better chance. Just imagine the white house in gold.

    He is a serious candidate as a spoiler` (none / 0) (#15)
    by msobel on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 04:21:45 PM EST
    I think he will take votes from the Democratic candidate and almost none from the Republican.  I think it is the only way that the Rethuglicans can win the white house on 08

    I doubt he'll take more than 5% (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 05:43:52 PM EST
    from the Dem candidate.

    He could take 10% from the gOP candidate.

    He hurts the GOP.

    Parent

    He's in it to win it. (none / 0) (#26)
    by ChrisG on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:46:16 AM EST

    BigMitch makes the right point, all of this is being said before Bloomberg has spent single penny of his projected $1-$1.5 billion dollar campaign budget.

    www.RunMikeRun.com

    Let's have another look at the Perot comparison. Perot, besides being a kook, dropped out of the race early on because he had too many gaffs and was overwhelmed by the media scrutiny, then he decided to get back in the race about a month before election day, and he still grabbed 19% of the popular vote. Secondly Perot was a cheap skate. He claimed he would spend up to $65M of his own money, but ended up spending less than a fraction of that, and didn't even run a TV campaign.

    Most would agree, the mood for change is much more charged today than it was in 1992.

    BUT MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL (besides a billion dollar+ budget):
    At the center of any potential Bloomberg campaign will most likely be a series of high profile endorsements, including very high profile defections from both parties. Something Perot never had on his side.

    Al Gore currently has the highest approval rating among Democrats in his party. He also has no love for Hillary. Contrasted with Al Gore and Mike Bloomberg's well known, warm and fuzzy relationship. Last week Forbes magazine claimed to have the inside scoop that Gore is going to endorse Bloomberg.

    Arnold Schwarzenegger, in addition to being one of the most popular and high profile figures in the Republican party, is also a good friend of Bloomberg and has said publicly (TIME magazine) that Bloomberg should run.

    If Gore and Schwarzenegger jump in with endorsements, others will follow. He made his billions in the media industry where he is hugely connected. Expect a windfall of endorsements from major papers and news organizations across the country. And throw in endorsements across wall-street and the corporate world where Bloomberg is highly respected.

    Take a country that is craving change. Give them an immensely popular and successful self-made businessman turned politician. Throw in a few high-profile defection endorsements from both major parties and back it up with a campaign budget at least five times larger than both major party candidates combined. Now you've got a race.

    It would not be an easy win, but since when is running for president ever easy? To count him out as a no-chance, you'd be foolish.

    This may not be the analogy he'd want, but it reminds me of that stockroom scene from the Matrix.

    YouTube: Stockroom Scene

    Trinity: Neo, nobody's ever done anything like this.
    Neo: That's why it's going to work.

    Come February or March, prepare for the Mike Bloomberg juggernaut.

    It's going to be a very interesting election indeed.

    Read more here:
    www.RunMikeRun.com
    Why Bloomberg Ain't Running | 26 comments (26 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment