According to this Rasmussen survey, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg would be considered as a candidate by 27% of the American people - certainly enough to swing an election, and as Bloomberg would reportedly spend a billion dollars of his own money, this would be a serious challenge.
The chances of Bloomberg even getting on the ballot in all 50 States are small - but he could certainly get on enough State ballots to theoretically win, and thus he would possibly affect the outcome in at least all of the major electoral battlefields. The big question: Whom does he help or hinder?
While Bloomberg is an ostensible Republican, that party label was really more a matter of convenience for a man who wanted to be mayor after Republican Rudy Giuliani left office. He's not really Republican - not in any sense which would make him consider the needs of the party over his personal desires. Running as a third party, it is doubtful that Bloomberg would make great inroads into conservative Republican voting strength. More than likely, Bloomberg's appeal would be for those who are committed to neither side - but there could be more than that.
If Hillary Clinton were to be nominated, then there is a great deal of leftwing Democratic opinion which would be, at the least, very unenthusiastic about her candidacy - a good effort on the part of Bloomberg could swing some tradtionally Democratic voters in crucial-for-Democrats States like California and New York (any Democrat who doesn't win both of those States has an insurmountable obstacle in getting to 270 electoral votes). Meanwhile, if the GOP nominates someone who doesn't resonate with more socially liberal Republicans, then we could see Bloomberg threatening the GOP in Ohio and Florida (States which are not as crucial for Republicans as California and New York are for Democrats, but are massively important). There could be a chance where a Bloomberg candidacy just messes up the whole electoral geography - with the GOP pouring resources into California to try and steal it away while the Democrats do ditto in Florida...meanwhile, no one is paying attention and the GOP wins Massachusetts, the Democrats win Texas, and the whole election gets thrown to the House.
As I've been saying for a while, 2008 looks to be the most intensively fought campaign since 1860 - and with just as high stakes involved. It could be that 40% carries the day in 2008.
That's a scary thought. He's like our version of Nader (who in turn helped us get Bush in, which I'm sure old Ralph wasn't too happy about).
Posted by: Brian Gregory at June 2, 2007 11:55 PM
