Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Moneybags Tries To Buy White House
Mayor Moneybags stirred up some interest today:
Couple things here:
Bloomberg CANNOT actually win the presidency. He has no national constituency, has no real issue to run on, has made some real tough enemies over the years (the NRA hates him over the gun control issue) and cannot count on state party establishments to turn out votes for him. Plus he disappears to a secret island on weekends and won't tell anyone where he goes, he's Jewish (how does that play in the heartland where the word "Mormon" is already creating problems for another presidential candidate?) and is rumored to be secretly gay (the girlfriend is a beard, if you believe the rumors, and the secret weekend trips are when he gets his groove on.) How electable is that type of candidate for the presidency? Not very, in my opinion, even though he reputedly is ready to drop a billion dollars in the race.
Bloomberg CAN still upend the race by taking votes away from one or both of the major party candidates. I suspect he would hurt Dems much more than Repubs, given his pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-choice stances. Whether he is willing to run a campaign and spend a billion dollars for no other reason than to ensure a Republican gets elected president is a bit doubtful, but you never know.
I believe Mayor Moneybags - with an ego the size of Dick Cheney's ass - relishes the attention and wants to be fellated by the national press for the next six months/year over whether he is going to run for president or not. He is going to tease us for a while, make lots of national appearances and talk about how good a job he has done in NYC by being above party.
But in the end, during a time when national security and foreign policy issues mean a whole lot, what the hell does a little mayor from NYC who once decreed that all bulletin boards in NYC public schools had to look EXACTLY the SAME and all classes across the city had to be on the EXACT SAME page in the EXACT SAME book at the EXACT SAME moment on the EXACT SAME day know about Iraq, Iran, Syria, China, India, Pakistan and Russia other than how to help his billionaire buddies outsource jobs to those countries?
How can he, even after dropping a billion+ in the race, win as an independent?
I will make a prediction - if Moneybags runs, he wins 1% of the vote for every $100 million he drops in the race. A billion only gives him 10% of the vote - not nearly enough to do anything other than give us Romney or Rudy for four years.
Will 10% make the little mayor from NYC happy? Or does the Moneybags just want all the attention before he rides off into the sunset?
UPDATE: Forgot to mention one thing - Bloomberg will run as the "practical manager/businessman" type who "can get things done." If Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination (and Romney currently leads in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina polls), Romney will also be running as the "practical manager/businessman" type who "can get things done." Kinda takes some of the wind out of Moneybags' sails. And with Giuliani tanking and McCain already toast, Romney is looking more and more like he is going to be the GOP candidate (unless Fred Thompson really catches fire - still doubtful.)
SECOND UPDATE: Chris Cilliza at The Fix runs through the past independent bids for president. The independent candidate who garnered the most popular votes for president in the last hundred years? Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 won 27% of the vote. That was good enough for 88 electoral votes; Woodrow Wilson won 435.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg left the Republican Party on Tuesday and switched to unaffiliated, a move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.
The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the Republican Party in 2001 for his first mayoral run, said the change in his voter registration does not mean he is running for president.
...
Throughout his 5 1/2 years as mayor, Bloomberg has often been at odds with his party and President Bush. He supports gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control and stem cell research, and raised property taxes to help solve a fiscal crisis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Couple things here:
Bloomberg CANNOT actually win the presidency. He has no national constituency, has no real issue to run on, has made some real tough enemies over the years (the NRA hates him over the gun control issue) and cannot count on state party establishments to turn out votes for him. Plus he disappears to a secret island on weekends and won't tell anyone where he goes, he's Jewish (how does that play in the heartland where the word "Mormon" is already creating problems for another presidential candidate?) and is rumored to be secretly gay (the girlfriend is a beard, if you believe the rumors, and the secret weekend trips are when he gets his groove on.) How electable is that type of candidate for the presidency? Not very, in my opinion, even though he reputedly is ready to drop a billion dollars in the race.
Bloomberg CAN still upend the race by taking votes away from one or both of the major party candidates. I suspect he would hurt Dems much more than Repubs, given his pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-choice stances. Whether he is willing to run a campaign and spend a billion dollars for no other reason than to ensure a Republican gets elected president is a bit doubtful, but you never know.
I believe Mayor Moneybags - with an ego the size of Dick Cheney's ass - relishes the attention and wants to be fellated by the national press for the next six months/year over whether he is going to run for president or not. He is going to tease us for a while, make lots of national appearances and talk about how good a job he has done in NYC by being above party.
But in the end, during a time when national security and foreign policy issues mean a whole lot, what the hell does a little mayor from NYC who once decreed that all bulletin boards in NYC public schools had to look EXACTLY the SAME and all classes across the city had to be on the EXACT SAME page in the EXACT SAME book at the EXACT SAME moment on the EXACT SAME day know about Iraq, Iran, Syria, China, India, Pakistan and Russia other than how to help his billionaire buddies outsource jobs to those countries?
How can he, even after dropping a billion+ in the race, win as an independent?
I will make a prediction - if Moneybags runs, he wins 1% of the vote for every $100 million he drops in the race. A billion only gives him 10% of the vote - not nearly enough to do anything other than give us Romney or Rudy for four years.
Will 10% make the little mayor from NYC happy? Or does the Moneybags just want all the attention before he rides off into the sunset?
UPDATE: Forgot to mention one thing - Bloomberg will run as the "practical manager/businessman" type who "can get things done." If Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination (and Romney currently leads in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina polls), Romney will also be running as the "practical manager/businessman" type who "can get things done." Kinda takes some of the wind out of Moneybags' sails. And with Giuliani tanking and McCain already toast, Romney is looking more and more like he is going to be the GOP candidate (unless Fred Thompson really catches fire - still doubtful.)
SECOND UPDATE: Chris Cilliza at The Fix runs through the past independent bids for president. The independent candidate who garnered the most popular votes for president in the last hundred years? Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 won 27% of the vote. That was good enough for 88 electoral votes; Woodrow Wilson won 435.
Comments:
<< Home
On NPR they were speculating that Mayor Mike has an eye on statewide office, and that being a Republican in NY State is the kiss of death nowadays. They interviewed a very important-sounding political scientist type who said Bloomie could never be the Prez.
Of course a lot of people said the same about Ronald Reagan.
Of course a lot of people said the same about Ronald Reagan.
reality, you wrote:
"Bloomberg CANNOT actually win the presidency."
Says you.
You wrote:
"He has no national constituency..."
Whatever that means?
You wrote:
"...has no real issue to run on..."
No real issue? What planet are you on? Every candidate has to wrestle with Iraq. Every candidate has to tackle the economy.
His ideas about Iraq will be no less sane than those of any other candidate. And he knows more about the economy of the US and the world than anyone who's ever reached the White House.
Then there are the phony issues, like abortion, gun control, flag burning, etc.
You wrote:
"...has made some real tough enemies over the years (the NRA hates him over the gun control issue) and cannot count on state party establishments to turn out votes for him."
In other words, he's a Democrat, which is the party he'll represent if he runs.
You wrote:
"Plus he disappears to a secret island on weekends and won't tell anyone where he goes..."
Pssst. Don't let this get around, but he goes to Bermuda.
You wrote:
"...he's Jewish (how does that play in the heartland where the word "Mormon" is already creating problems for another presidential candidate?)"
Bloomberg seems to be a secular Jew. Meanwhile, since he'd run as a Democrat, his Jewishness wouldn't form an obstacle. Many conservative Christians might not vote for a Jew, but most of those voters are Republicans.
The Republican line-up is weak. At this point not one of them has more than half-hearted support.
Which Republican contender would beat Bloomberg if Bloomberg were running as the Democratic candidate?
You wrote:
"...and is rumored to be secretly gay (the girlfriend is a beard, if you believe the rumors, and the secret weekend trips are when he gets his groove on.)"
Gay? Bloomberg gay? Oh please.
You wrote:
"How electable is that type of candidate for the presidency?"
Compared with whom? Every other candidate has far more baggage and baggage that's much more problematic.
No scandals are part of Bloomberg's past. No known criminal associates. No weird marriages, no estranged children, no problematic spouses, no serious illnesses, no ethics problems, no stupidity problem, no race problem, no foot-in-mouth problem, no experience deficit.
What's the problem? There are so few true shortcomings in Bloomberg's curriculum vitae that you had to manufacture a couple that you think would sink his ship with middle-America voters.
Aside from Hillary, not one of the Democratic hopefuls is a potential president. Meanwhile, Hillary is the one who can win the nomination, but can't win the presidency. She's got the baggage. Not just the baggage named Bill. Moreover, the country is not ready to elect a woman president.
I think Bloomberg is smart enough to know he can't win the presidency if he runs as an indepedent. He also knows running as an indepedent means his presence in the race could change the outcome. However, I'm not sure which candidate would benefit most. He would siphon votes from both parties.
In short, if Bloomberg runs, he will become the most interesting candidate in the race.
"Bloomberg CANNOT actually win the presidency."
Says you.
You wrote:
"He has no national constituency..."
Whatever that means?
You wrote:
"...has no real issue to run on..."
No real issue? What planet are you on? Every candidate has to wrestle with Iraq. Every candidate has to tackle the economy.
His ideas about Iraq will be no less sane than those of any other candidate. And he knows more about the economy of the US and the world than anyone who's ever reached the White House.
Then there are the phony issues, like abortion, gun control, flag burning, etc.
You wrote:
"...has made some real tough enemies over the years (the NRA hates him over the gun control issue) and cannot count on state party establishments to turn out votes for him."
In other words, he's a Democrat, which is the party he'll represent if he runs.
You wrote:
"Plus he disappears to a secret island on weekends and won't tell anyone where he goes..."
Pssst. Don't let this get around, but he goes to Bermuda.
You wrote:
"...he's Jewish (how does that play in the heartland where the word "Mormon" is already creating problems for another presidential candidate?)"
Bloomberg seems to be a secular Jew. Meanwhile, since he'd run as a Democrat, his Jewishness wouldn't form an obstacle. Many conservative Christians might not vote for a Jew, but most of those voters are Republicans.
The Republican line-up is weak. At this point not one of them has more than half-hearted support.
Which Republican contender would beat Bloomberg if Bloomberg were running as the Democratic candidate?
You wrote:
"...and is rumored to be secretly gay (the girlfriend is a beard, if you believe the rumors, and the secret weekend trips are when he gets his groove on.)"
Gay? Bloomberg gay? Oh please.
You wrote:
"How electable is that type of candidate for the presidency?"
Compared with whom? Every other candidate has far more baggage and baggage that's much more problematic.
No scandals are part of Bloomberg's past. No known criminal associates. No weird marriages, no estranged children, no problematic spouses, no serious illnesses, no ethics problems, no stupidity problem, no race problem, no foot-in-mouth problem, no experience deficit.
What's the problem? There are so few true shortcomings in Bloomberg's curriculum vitae that you had to manufacture a couple that you think would sink his ship with middle-America voters.
Aside from Hillary, not one of the Democratic hopefuls is a potential president. Meanwhile, Hillary is the one who can win the nomination, but can't win the presidency. She's got the baggage. Not just the baggage named Bill. Moreover, the country is not ready to elect a woman president.
I think Bloomberg is smart enough to know he can't win the presidency if he runs as an indepedent. He also knows running as an indepedent means his presence in the race could change the outcome. However, I'm not sure which candidate would benefit most. He would siphon votes from both parties.
In short, if Bloomberg runs, he will become the most interesting candidate in the race.
# posted by 
: 11:18 PM
: 11:18 PM
What statewide office could Bloomberg want? Governor is already taken for the next four years. By the time the next election would come around, Moneybags will be 70 and would presumably have to run against Spitzer. That's no easy task.
No, he's got his eye on an outside shot at the WH.
N_s, you're truly wrong if you think Bloomberg could win nationally as a Dem. He wouldn't get single digits in the primary. His economic stances (pro-corporation, anti-union, pro-outsourcing) would kill him in industrial states and his pro-choice, pro-gun control stances don't help him since all the other Dem candidates have the same stances. Even if he comes out against the war (which he hasn't), so what? Every Dem in the race but HRC has done this.
No, moneybags has to run as an independent. He thinks there is a Ross Perot moment for him next year when there will be a lot of dissatisfaction w/ the two major parties. However, as I pointed out , the system is rigged against independents and even Perot only won 19% in 1992. Unless something extraordinary happens between now and election, Moneybags cannot win. He can only serve as a spoiler.
No, he's got his eye on an outside shot at the WH.
N_s, you're truly wrong if you think Bloomberg could win nationally as a Dem. He wouldn't get single digits in the primary. His economic stances (pro-corporation, anti-union, pro-outsourcing) would kill him in industrial states and his pro-choice, pro-gun control stances don't help him since all the other Dem candidates have the same stances. Even if he comes out against the war (which he hasn't), so what? Every Dem in the race but HRC has done this.
No, moneybags has to run as an independent. He thinks there is a Ross Perot moment for him next year when there will be a lot of dissatisfaction w/ the two major parties. However, as I pointed out , the system is rigged against independents and even Perot only won 19% in 1992. Unless something extraordinary happens between now and election, Moneybags cannot win. He can only serve as a spoiler.
reality, you wrote:
"No, moneybags has to run as an independent."
As you noted, Bloomberg has got somewhere between $5 and $20 billion. He can run under any banner he chooses. He is bound by nothing.
When Ronald Lauder wanted to become mayor of NYC he thought he could buy the necessary votes. He found out he could not. But the problem was himself. Not the money.
Bloomberg is true presidential timber, unlike all the declared Democratic candidates.
You wrote:
"He thinks there is a Ross Perot moment for him next year when there will be a lot of dissatisfaction w/ the two major parties."
That may be true. But his understanding of the dissatisfaction will lead him to jump into the Democratic party. Not to run against both parties.
You wrote:
"However, as I pointed out , the system is rigged against independents and even Perot only won 19% in 1992."
To claim the system "is rigged against independents" is the same as saying you don't believe in majority votes.
Presidential races should include no more than two opponents. One Republican. One Democrat. Otherwise, it is a certainty that the winner will have failed to obtain a majority of votes.
Many people enjoy arguing that Bush lost the 2000 popular vote as well as the electoral vote. Well, thank Ralph Nader for the outcome.
Perot's presence in the '92 race led to Clinton's victory. Had Bush 41 gotten Perot's votes, he would have served a second term. Meanwhile, Perot did not win the electoral vote in a single state.
Perot's name was on the ballot. Anyone who wanted to vote for him was given the opportunity. If any "rigging" occurred, it was to deprive Bush 41 of a second term because an unelectable candidate siphoned off votes that would have been his. Clinton is eternally grateful to Perot.
You wrote:
"Unless something extraordinary happens between now and election, Moneybags cannot win."
Like what? The end of our involvement in Iraq? In fact, Bloomberg's opportunity is greatest if there are no big developments between now and election day.
The field of Democrats and Republicans comprises a string of deeply flawed candidates. Without any dramatic developments that favor one candidate over another, the crowd remains hopelessly boring. That's good for Mike. He possesses more potential than any of them.
You wrote:
"He can only serve as a spoiler."
So which candidate is he secretly supporting? Hillary or the Republican nominee?
Answer. Neither. Bloomberg has a demanding day job. He's not going to spend huge sums and invest a lot of time to alter the outcome of the next presidential election unless he alters it by positioning himself to win.
Your view only works if his true aim is to function as a prankster hoping to mock our election process.
In any case, Bloomberg cannot win as a third-party candidate. He's smart enough to know that. Therefore, he must run as the nominee of a major party. Since he resigned from the Republican party, there's only one choice remaining.
"No, moneybags has to run as an independent."
As you noted, Bloomberg has got somewhere between $5 and $20 billion. He can run under any banner he chooses. He is bound by nothing.
When Ronald Lauder wanted to become mayor of NYC he thought he could buy the necessary votes. He found out he could not. But the problem was himself. Not the money.
Bloomberg is true presidential timber, unlike all the declared Democratic candidates.
You wrote:
"He thinks there is a Ross Perot moment for him next year when there will be a lot of dissatisfaction w/ the two major parties."
That may be true. But his understanding of the dissatisfaction will lead him to jump into the Democratic party. Not to run against both parties.
You wrote:
"However, as I pointed out , the system is rigged against independents and even Perot only won 19% in 1992."
To claim the system "is rigged against independents" is the same as saying you don't believe in majority votes.
Presidential races should include no more than two opponents. One Republican. One Democrat. Otherwise, it is a certainty that the winner will have failed to obtain a majority of votes.
Many people enjoy arguing that Bush lost the 2000 popular vote as well as the electoral vote. Well, thank Ralph Nader for the outcome.
Perot's presence in the '92 race led to Clinton's victory. Had Bush 41 gotten Perot's votes, he would have served a second term. Meanwhile, Perot did not win the electoral vote in a single state.
Perot's name was on the ballot. Anyone who wanted to vote for him was given the opportunity. If any "rigging" occurred, it was to deprive Bush 41 of a second term because an unelectable candidate siphoned off votes that would have been his. Clinton is eternally grateful to Perot.
You wrote:
"Unless something extraordinary happens between now and election, Moneybags cannot win."
Like what? The end of our involvement in Iraq? In fact, Bloomberg's opportunity is greatest if there are no big developments between now and election day.
The field of Democrats and Republicans comprises a string of deeply flawed candidates. Without any dramatic developments that favor one candidate over another, the crowd remains hopelessly boring. That's good for Mike. He possesses more potential than any of them.
You wrote:
"He can only serve as a spoiler."
So which candidate is he secretly supporting? Hillary or the Republican nominee?
Answer. Neither. Bloomberg has a demanding day job. He's not going to spend huge sums and invest a lot of time to alter the outcome of the next presidential election unless he alters it by positioning himself to win.
Your view only works if his true aim is to function as a prankster hoping to mock our election process.
In any case, Bloomberg cannot win as a third-party candidate. He's smart enough to know that. Therefore, he must run as the nominee of a major party. Since he resigned from the Republican party, there's only one choice remaining.
# posted by : 10:52 AM
: 10:52 AM
reality, you wrote:
"N_s, you're truly wrong if you think Bloomberg could win nationally as a Dem."
I think every Democratic voter believes Hillary will receive the party's nomination. I think Democrats also believe she is the party's candidate who will lose by the smallest margin. Thus, her position as the nominee is not secure.
You wrote:
"He wouldn't get single digits in the primary."
Says you. He's got enough time and money to gather the necessary support.
You wrote:
"His economic stances (pro-corporation..."
He is pro-employment.
You wrote:
"...anti-union..."
Based on what? He presides over the most unionized city in the country. Although I do agree he opposes the self-destructive nature that defines much of unionism today.
You wrote:
"...pro-outsourcing)"
The Bloomberg Corporation is an information service that is always looking for new employees. Like it or not, admit it or not, but we live in a linked world, and some work is best performed elsewhere. That's how it is, and no amount of denial will change the world or stop the changes from occurring.
You wrote:
"...would kill him in industrial states..."
Which states? Which jobs? He needs only to point to his record of building a big company that employs thousands of people to make a case that he knows how to create opportunities for workers. He's also willing to tax those who can afford to pay and he disapproves of giving concessions to corporations to entice them to stay put or induce them to come to town.
You wrote:
" and his pro-choice, pro-gun control stances don't help him since all the other Dem candidates have the same stances."
In other words, he's a Democrat. His true colors are evident even to you. That means he doesn't have to dissemble or temporize on these topics like other candidates.
You wrote:
"Even if he comes out against the war (which he hasn't), so what? Every Dem in the race but HRC has done this."
You've made the case for his candidacy as a Democrat.
He can easily assume an acceptable position on this issue. Meanwhile, his personal qualifications put him head and shoulders above the others in the crowd.
"N_s, you're truly wrong if you think Bloomberg could win nationally as a Dem."
I think every Democratic voter believes Hillary will receive the party's nomination. I think Democrats also believe she is the party's candidate who will lose by the smallest margin. Thus, her position as the nominee is not secure.
You wrote:
"He wouldn't get single digits in the primary."
Says you. He's got enough time and money to gather the necessary support.
You wrote:
"His economic stances (pro-corporation..."
He is pro-employment.
You wrote:
"...anti-union..."
Based on what? He presides over the most unionized city in the country. Although I do agree he opposes the self-destructive nature that defines much of unionism today.
You wrote:
"...pro-outsourcing)"
The Bloomberg Corporation is an information service that is always looking for new employees. Like it or not, admit it or not, but we live in a linked world, and some work is best performed elsewhere. That's how it is, and no amount of denial will change the world or stop the changes from occurring.
You wrote:
"...would kill him in industrial states..."
Which states? Which jobs? He needs only to point to his record of building a big company that employs thousands of people to make a case that he knows how to create opportunities for workers. He's also willing to tax those who can afford to pay and he disapproves of giving concessions to corporations to entice them to stay put or induce them to come to town.
You wrote:
" and his pro-choice, pro-gun control stances don't help him since all the other Dem candidates have the same stances."
In other words, he's a Democrat. His true colors are evident even to you. That means he doesn't have to dissemble or temporize on these topics like other candidates.
You wrote:
"Even if he comes out against the war (which he hasn't), so what? Every Dem in the race but HRC has done this."
You've made the case for his candidacy as a Democrat.
He can easily assume an acceptable position on this issue. Meanwhile, his personal qualifications put him head and shoulders above the others in the crowd.
# posted by : 11:23 AM
: 11:23 AM
Bet you he doesn't run as a Dem. Also bet you he doesn't become president under ANY party affiliation.
reality, you wrote:
"Bet you he doesn't run as a Dem."
You're on.
You wrote:
"Also bet you he doesn't become president under ANY party affiliation."
I'll take that bet too.
A friend of mine waqered me that Kerry would win in 2004. He has yet to pay up. The bet was small -- a beer at Farrell's bar in Brooklyn. Nevertheless, I'm still waiting.
Our bet will involve only bragging rights.
Post a Comment
"Bet you he doesn't run as a Dem."
You're on.
You wrote:
"Also bet you he doesn't become president under ANY party affiliation."
I'll take that bet too.
A friend of mine waqered me that Kerry would win in 2004. He has yet to pay up. The bet was small -- a beer at Farrell's bar in Brooklyn. Nevertheless, I'm still waiting.
Our bet will involve only bragging rights.
# posted by : 4:43 PM
: 4:43 PM << Home
