A serious Bloomberg run? Another view

posted at 11:01 am on January 24, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

By this point all of the political junkies out there have heard the rumors indicating that former New York Mayor and ultimate Nanny State advocate Michael Bloomberg is thinking of a third party run for the White House. Last night Ed took the potential race apart, seeming to indicate that it might not only be worth Bloomberg’s time, but that he could actually carry some electoral votes. Anything’s possible, I suppose, but the realities of such a race would be essentially unpredictable at this point as far as I can tell. Ed correctly notes some potential similarities between Bloomberg and Ross Perot, but pairing 2016 against 1992 just rings a bit shallow for me.

Some other authors I’ve seen have been comparing such a race to the primary season in 1968, and there are definitely some similarities. But at the same time, if Bloomberg does get in (more on that below) and can carry some states, particularly New York, the race may look very, very different. As the guys at Powerline point out, we might find ourselves looking at 1824 all over again.

But I wonder whether we might have four major candidates in the event of a Trump-Sanders or Trump-Clinton matchup—Bloomberg plus an “independent” Republican candidate (I’d guess it might be Romney)? Then the election we’d most resemble was 1824, when there were four major candidates running. That election was settled in the House of Representatives in favor of John Quincy Adams, even though Andrew Jackson won the most popular votes. One could imagine this happening again, with Trump, Clinton, or Bloomberg getting the most votes, but a Republican dominated House picking the “independent” Republican candidate. (Let’s hope to God it isn’t Jeb Bush.) One can imagine today’s Jacksonian candidate (Mr. T) being just as outraged as Jackson was at such an outcome. If you think things were bitter after the messy outcome of the 2000 election between Bush and Gore, just wait.

The first thing we need to ask ourselves is what Bloomberg’s motivation is in all of this beyond just a blind desire for power. Why would he get in the race? We’re being told that he’s so upset at the possibility of a Trump vs Sanders election that he may feel compelled to swoop in and save us all. But if that’s the premise, then I suppose we’re expected to believe that he would quietly and happily sit home if the race wound up somehow being Hillary vs Rubio. Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Bloomberg may be sensing an opportunity to be the consummate establishment candidate if it comes down to a battle of the outsiders, though. He likely has advisers whispering in his ear telling him that much of the country is terrified of seeing their choices narrowed down to either the Vermont Socialist or the Manhattan business mogul. It’s probably a tempting concept since frightened establishment fans can easily paint that pairing like a battle between Godzilla and Mothra: no matter who wins, your city’s probably going to be trashed.

But should prospective Bloomberg supporters feel any more sanguine about a battle where Hillary Clinton is the candidate? Do they really want to put all of their chips in on a race where their candidate might have visitors with an arrest warrant showing up any day? Again, color me skeptical.

In the end, here’s how I think we need to read the tea leaves for anything associated with Bloomberg. Look at his bank account. If a fool and his money are soon parted, Michael is on the opposite end of the spectrum from a fool. If the man is attached to anything it’s money and if he’s seriously thinking about cashing in to the tune of a billion dollars of his own cash for a race, it’s not to be an issue candidate or to “shake things up.” If Bloomberg does this it’s because he thinks he can actually win. The remaining question for me is, what path does he see to victory when so many others have come before him and failed miserably in similar quests? For that answer maybe we need to go back to the Powerline analysis. The two parties are so deeply embedded in most states that no independent candidate, regardless of the cash he has available to burn on an air war, is going to carry them. But he might be able to carry enough that neither Trump or Sanders could get to 271. (For one hypothetical example, he’d really only have to carry New York and Texas along with one of the larger swing states to shut both of them down.) And then? If he really pictures himself as the establishment candidate in that scenario perhaps he thinks the House of Representatives who are largely establishment fans would cut some deals and put him in the White House.

It sounds unlikely in the extreme to me, and I’d put the highest odds on this being a story based on a couple of idle conversations after a few too many cocktails. Bloomberg can get a good laugh out of it, enjoy a few headlines and then let the idea die. I’m going to go ahead and label this story vaporware for the time being. But if I’m wrong and he does start filing papers next month, then the guy has a plan. He’s a terrible, nanny state dictator wannabe, but he’s not stupid.

Bloomberg


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

….Nanny & Granny….against Trump!
Explosions in the politburo press!

JugEarsButtHurt on January 24, 2016 at 11:04 AM

I doubt he could carry NY.

Killary's Server on January 24, 2016 at 11:06 AM

That’s one small sip for man, one giant Big Gulp for mankind.

Nortelcrank on January 24, 2016 at 11:09 AM

The first thing we need to ask ourselves is what Bloomberg’s motivation is in all of this beyond just a blind desire for power.

Nothing – that’s all there is.
He’s just a power-mad, power-hungry little Napoleon-wannabe control freak.

dentarthurdent on January 24, 2016 at 11:12 AM

Trump comes out to a campaign event with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder, drinking from a big gulp, and says… “From my cold dead hands, Bloomberg”.

Boom, election over.

Braveheart on January 24, 2016 at 11:13 AM

Meh, all a marketing bullpie. Get a news story or two, maybe a guest spot on Tavis Smiley or Kimmel, rub elbows with money giving idiots. I’m sure his publicist is just delighted with the number of clicks his webpage is getting this morning.

Limerick on January 24, 2016 at 11:14 AM

Trump comes out to a campaign event with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder, drinking from a big gulp, and says… “From my cold dead hands, Bloomberg”.

Boom, election over.

Braveheart on January 24, 2016 at 11:13 AM

And then shoot a #BLM or Moms Demand Gun Confiscation protester…..

He said he could kill someone and people would still vote for him – which would likely be true if he shoots the right person……

dentarthurdent on January 24, 2016 at 11:17 AM

if your going to have a 3rd party candidate-we want bloomberg-who is a liberal democrat to begin with,

gerrym51 on January 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM

He wants to help Hillary. Fellow corruptocrat.

AprilApple on January 24, 2016 at 11:19 AM

He wants to help Hillary. Fellow corruptocrat.

AprilApple on January 24, 2016 at 11:19 AM

I had the impression from a lot of people that’s what Trump is already supposedly doing.

dentarthurdent on January 24, 2016 at 11:24 AM

if your going to have a 3rd party candidate-we want bloomberg-who is a liberal democrat to begin with,

gerrym51 on January 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM

He can’t possibly be that, he was an early No Labels adopter…..

roy_batty on January 24, 2016 at 11:25 AM

This country is just begging for a totalitarian.

tdarrington on January 24, 2016 at 11:26 AM

He can’t possibly be that, he was an early No Labels adopter…..

roy_batty on January 24, 2016 at 11:25 AM

The label is irrelevant – he IS a hard-left progressive crony capitalist dictator.

dentarthurdent on January 24, 2016 at 11:27 AM

Bloomberg is unelectable nationally. Maybe New Yorkers will tolerate someone taking their soda, but not the average American. He has no positions that are attractive, no stance against terrorism. In addition, if Trump wins the nomination, he will most likely pivot in the general to his default positions, pro-choice, pro-gvt healthcare, etc. There is no way Bloomberg could beat Trump nationally based on Trump’s longstanding positions. If Cruz wins the nomination and Hillary is indicted I don’t know what will happen.

Bloomberg may start the ball rolling if it looks like Hillary is going to the pen.

talkingpoints on January 24, 2016 at 11:28 AM

I assume National Review will devote a single issue to this? My question really is, will they support Bloomberg in it?

JFKY on January 24, 2016 at 11:28 AM

This country is just begging for a totalitarian.

tdarrington on January 24, 2016 at 11:26 AM

They’d get it good and hard with Bloomingidiot.

dentarthurdent on January 24, 2016 at 11:28 AM

I want to view this as a good thing. I want to say, there is no way any Republican would vote for him. But, I look at Trump’s 35% support…

tdarrington on January 24, 2016 at 11:28 AM

Bloomberg’s key in being a (reasonably) successful mayor of New York was in large part by following a Republican mayor of New York, and not changing the core of what Giuliani had done back in 1994 with William Bratton, which was change the concept of policing in the city to be pro-active with the ‘broken windows’ theory of policing. It basically said control the misdemeanor crimes and you’d catch a lot of the felony perpetrators. Bloomberg kept and even expanded that under his NYPD chief, Ray Kelly, with the ‘Stop and Frisk’ program.

Why that’s important is that the #BlackLivesMatter crowd hates not just ‘Stop and Frisk’, but ‘broken windows’ policing with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns, and would be hell-bent to force Bloomberg to confess his sins for that program, or face ostracization among the Social Justice Warrior crowd, Big Gulp and trans-fat bans notwithstanding.

That in turn means Bloomberg could have less appeal among the left than he thinks he’s going to have right now, which would mean if he’s going to take votes from Hillary (or Bernie), he’s have to draw from the ‘soft’ left that likes to tell people what to do, but doesn’t like their own quality of life negatively affected. Would they vote for Bloomberg over Clinton or Sanders while the far left #BLMers are calling ex-Mayor Mike a racist, if they thought it might allow the Republican nominee to win? Doubtful — the soft left is too bottom-line oriented to put their personal convictions over the potential loss of power.

jon1979 on January 24, 2016 at 11:32 AM

I’ll file this with all of the reports about Trump fading away any day now.

HiJack on January 24, 2016 at 11:38 AM

Bloomberg has zero chance of being elected

A gun grabbing Communist?

This is a silly analysis

The only thing he might do is put a handful of blue states into play

If not New York, maybe Pennsylvania for example

Hard to think he can pull much above 10% and virtually all of that support will come from Hitlery

Rick Perrys Parakeet on January 24, 2016 at 11:39 AM

Bloomberg may be sensing an opportunity to be the consummate establishment candidate if it comes down to a battle of the outsiders, though. He likely has advisers whispering in his ear telling him that much of the country is terrified of seeing their choices narrowed down to either the Vermont Socialist or the Manhattan business mogul.

How is a Manhattan business mogul an outsider? Particularly one who looks favorably on nationalized health care. And who was mayor for twelve years of the city that includes Manhattan? Bloomberg.

A Donald vs. Mike election essentially comes down to a battle of egos. Trump is already in, does Bloomberg’s larger wallet and actually having governed make him so jealous that he goes independent?

How much has Trump paid in protection money to Bloomberg’s NYC mayoral races?

rbj on January 24, 2016 at 11:39 AM

And Hitlery will never be indicted, that’s just silly, we are no longer a nation of laws, she is a Democrat therefore she will not be indicted

And the press will yawn

Then she will declare herself vindicated…

Rick Perrys Parakeet on January 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM

NYC not only changed the rules to allow bloomie to run for a third term, they followed up by electing an unapologetic communist. Yet, he will still siphon Republican votes.

tdarrington on January 24, 2016 at 11:45 AM

If he runs, he’ll help to get someone elected.
Just not himself.

TimBuk3 on January 24, 2016 at 11:46 AM

And Hitlery will never be indicted, that’s just silly, we are no longer a nation of laws, she is a Democrat therefore she will not be indicted

And the press will yawn

Then she will declare herself vindicated…

Rick Perrys Parakeet on January 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM

Yup. Lynch will trot out the “not marked” line and “retroactively classified” and “disagreement between State and IC.”

There will be outcry for about 3 days. Congress will stomp its feet a few times, then the news cycle will churn on and she will be in the General having “defeated” republican attacks.

tdarrington on January 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM

No doubt the Dems are looking for a liberal Republican to run. In theory, it peels off 5% and Hillary slips in.

cimbri on January 24, 2016 at 11:58 AM

I hope Bloomberg runs. He’ll split the Democrat vote.

Stoic Patriot on January 24, 2016 at 11:59 AM

Will the anti-Trumpers support Bloomberg or Hillary?

It will be a tough choice for them I bet that they like elements of both, in the end I suspect that it will come down to who supports open borders more.

Redstone on January 24, 2016 at 11:59 AM

I assume National Review will devote a single issue to this? My question really is, will they support Bloomberg in it?

JFKY on January 24, 2016 at 11:28 AM

Maybe not a whole issue, but they will definitely do a “from the editors” article praising him, probably with a section, “much has been made of Bloomberg’s soda-ban, but we believe that it is in line with conservative principles”.

Bloomberg might not be far-left enough on immigration for them, though.

To be a true “National Review” Republican you need to have a Paul Ryan/Marco Rubio approach to the border.

Redstone on January 24, 2016 at 12:02 PM

Trump v Bloomberg v Sanders would be a fascinating race.

everdiso on January 24, 2016 at 12:03 PM

Trump v Bloomberg v Sanders would be a fascinating race.

everdiso on January 24, 2016 at 12:03 PM

At which point I will pray for a nuclear war.

rbj on January 24, 2016 at 12:10 PM

Man, would I love to see The Bloom and The Donald go at each other BEFORE Bloomy decides to enter the race. Damage could be done to both.

vnvet on January 24, 2016 at 12:10 PM

Seems more likely that he’d get in as the Dem nominee in a contested convention. Maybe with DWS as his VP.

Buckshot Bill on January 24, 2016 at 12:12 PM

Hahahaha. Go Cuda

Watch “Sarah Palin & Donald Trump – Country EDM Remix” on YouTube
https://youtu.be/9cs9jP2ILOw

SpongePuppy on January 24, 2016 at 12:16 PM

PeeWee Herman will carry Texas before this arrogant bastard will.

TXUS on January 24, 2016 at 12:24 PM

Fox News

Iowa: Trump 34, Cruz 23, Rubio 15

Senator Philip Bluster on January 24, 2016 at 12:34 PM

I just don’t understand how this works for anyone getting into the race at this late date. I’m not a politico, so there’s a lot I don’t know about the process but really…what’s the path to the nomination for someone just now coming into the race?

flipflop on January 24, 2016 at 12:38 PM

Bloomberg entering the race will hand the election to Trump. There are no two ways about it, or as it might be said there is no third way about it.

For one, there is no state securely in Trump’s column which will slip to Bloomberg. Two, it more likely that states leaning Trump will go securely Trump because of the 2nd Amendment positions of the candidates, and, since you mention Gore’s loss of Tennessee, I’ll remind one of the position of the states in 2000 vs now:

Unrestricted: 1 vs 7
Shall Issue: 30 vs 35
May Issue: 12 vs 8
No Issue: 7 vs 0

I’ll also remind that when Perot and Anderson ran, gun rights and voting on that basis was nothing compared to now.

I think the comparison to 1824 is overblown. One reason is that 1824 was 4 candidates, not three. Three means it is more likely to take it away votes from one and not another. Four means one can be a wrecker for each sides. Also, in 1824, there were 25 states of which 7 split their electoral votes, NY’s being the largest and split their vote four ways. If it were like that now, NY’s 29 EV’s might be split in thirds, but as it’s winner take all the that will be a large loss for Clinton (or Sanders), if Bloomberg can win it, as it is not likely (as of now)) that Trump will win it. But I doubt Bloomberg can even win that one, though he might take NJ, MA, DE, RI, MD, and possibly CT. I doubt he’d do that well in FL, but again if he does, it will be to take away from Clinton, not Trump. In PA he’ll hurt Clinton and Sanders more than Trump.

Lastly Bloomberg’s record. Sandy and the Blizzard will get much play as will his tyrannical health compulsion. That won’t do well in any state but CA, imo, because NY has already seen it up close.

Billions in advertising won’t help. Twitter is where it is at, where $20M in major advertising buys can be flushed down the toilet by the opposition with one tweet. Bloomie is not a Twitterer and will never be one.

Dusty on January 24, 2016 at 12:47 PM

again, you are leaving out the big gorilla in the room, AMNESTY. Buttberg is toast, and so is the Dem in a 3 way race, because if you combine amnesty with gun grabbing, you have only lefties supporting Buttberg.

just like Bush with the combo of common core and amnesty, Buttberg will be a sure loser, and will take mostly votes from the Dem left because of the combo of amnesty and gun grabbing.

Senator Philip Bluster on January 24, 2016 at 1:07 PM

[flipflop on January 24, 2016 at 12:38 PM]

For those thinking to run independently, the bottom line is that every state has their own rules. Most of the rules are based on recognizing political parties, giving certain parties which have passed a certain vote getting threshold in the last election auto passes to be on the ballot.

Anyone else needs to petition to be on the ballot, though there are some which allow a person to pay a fee to be on the ballot, though there may be caveats like not being able to do it for the general election. Petitioning is a process where the intending cadidate collects signatures from a minimum % of registered voters, in effect saying they support this person to be on the ballot in the general election. It can be a nightmare of organizational, work effort to accomplish. In NYS, I think, one needs 5% of the registered voters to sign, but, generally, those 5% have to come from every voting district in the state, so if you need 100,000, you can’t just get 95,000 from NYC and 5,000 from elsewhere. In addition there is a time constraint and often a severely hampering one. I don’t remember the times in NYS but I think it’s early summer and you only get about a month to do it. There are a lot of rule hurdles to jump too, which can be used to throw out individual petitions (a petition means the whole page of say 25 good signatures because of one error by the witness collecting the signatures.

It’s a tough process. I don’t think Perot was even on all the ballots when he ran in 1992. Usually what someone who wants to run third party does is to get recognized parties to front them the ballot line access. That is what Nader has usually done, but even then it doesn’t guarantee 50 state access.

I don’t know the rule for D and R, but you need to be a party member to throw you hat in the ring. I suppose anyone from the party can throw their hat in the ring at any time, but to be on the primary ballot one would need to do it before the primary deadline and file the necessary papers in each state.

Dusty on January 24, 2016 at 1:14 PM

[Senator Philip Bluster on January 24, 2016 at 1:07 PM]

Yeah, I didn’t mention anmesty in my assessment above. It’s a different mix of people than the gun issue group is and harder to guess, by state, how it will play, but those votes won’t go to Bloomberg, that is for sure.

Bloomie is most definitely a Dem killer, though a Clinton killer more than a Sanders killer.

Dusty on January 24, 2016 at 1:21 PM

They’d get it good and hard with Bloomingidiot.

dentarthurdent on January 24, 2016 at 11:28 AM

.
Another dyed in the wool Mencken fan? The man had all the wrong political views, but he was an undisputed a master of the snarky ‘mot juste’.

meerbock on January 24, 2016 at 1:22 PM

Bloomberg would split the Trump vote.

“New York values.”

TBSchemer on January 24, 2016 at 2:56 PM

A serious Bloomberg run? Another view

He’s a successful businessman. Who else could manage America, Inc. better?

Thought that was what millions of folks want in a candidate?

Be careful what you wish for.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM

please, please, please let this arrogant nanny idiot run

— He’ll push the libtards further left into calling for full on fascist gun confiscation

— He puts NY and possibly some other NE states at risk for Hillary. That could be massively devastating from an electoral vote perspective

— he gives petulant Bernie supporters a way to cast a protest vote when Killary eventually steals the nomination

— sadly, he gives RINOs and Jeb/Kasich supporters a place to cast their pathetic protest votes, instead of voting for Shrillary like they keep threatening. So he splits the sore loser RINO vote

Honestly, the thought of a race with a NY Senator, a NYC businessman, and a NYC mayor as our 3 options makes me throw up in my mouth

But Bloomberg running is nothing but blue skies for us, I hope to God it happens

thurman on January 24, 2016 at 5:54 PM

I neglected to also mention:

— his “stop and frisk” BS was wildly unpopular with libtards and the BLM moron crew. This will be a huge issue for him in this pathetic world we currently live in

–there is the very real possibility the FBI investigation hits the fan for Killary hard once she’s already locked up the nomination– maybe Bloomberg is factoring this and trying to be a de facto backup nominee for the DNC? This actually makes more sense than anything

thurman on January 24, 2016 at 5:58 PM

Will the anti-Trumpers support Bloomberg or Hillary?

It will be a tough choice for them I bet that they like elements of both, in the end I suspect that it will come down to who supports open borders more.

Redstone on January 24, 2016 at 11:59 AM

The anti-trumpers will vote for whoever promises to not do anything about illegals

The Notorious G.O.P on January 24, 2016 at 8:01 PM

Bloomberg is an evil, conniving criminal. If he was hit by a bus or falling space junk, I’d consider it a just reward.

S. D. on January 24, 2016 at 11:06 PM

It’s getting sad now. the Anti Trumpers are down to wishing upon a star.

johngalt on January 25, 2016 at 8:21 AM