They Call This "Beating a Dead Horse" (More on Bloomberg)

Okay, I have a new theory brought about by yet another New York Times article.

Mr. Bloomberg was described as conflicted about a national run, intrigued by the possibility of winning the presidency but telling friends that he would not run unless he was certain that he could win. And he did not want to go down in history as a spoiler who contributed to the defeat of a Democrat like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, he has told friends.

The first part here is the classic "in it to win it" line, but the second half is more interesting. Perhaps he would run if his research (or others' research - even before he announced his change in affiliation, there were already general election polls that included him) showed that he would draw more votes away from the Republican, allowing a Democrat to win. We must not forget that he was a Democrat for many years, and he only switched parties for his mayoral campaign. He is a moderate liberal at heart, and he does not want to see four or eight more years of stagnation on issues like stem cell research and gay rights.

So, what I can gather is that he doesn't want to be the Ralph Nader of 2008 (I'm referring to the fact, of course, that Mr. Nader drew enough votes away from Gore to cost him the election of 2000). But, would he be willing to be the Ross Perot of 2008 (who drew enough votes away from George H. W. Bush to cost him the election of 1992)? I think the odds of that are far more likely. However, it might be a bad idea for his future plans, given that Republicans will absolutely hate him (as many Democrats - myself included - are still angry at Ralph Nader) if he hands the election to Hillary. After all, when you want to base your career on creating bipartisan solutions and you offend half of the public, you're really shooting yourself in the foot.

Shrum on Bloomberg

Now, Bob Shrum wouldn't be my first choice for advice on how to actually win a Presidential campaign. (Career record: 0-8). But he's certainly been around enough potential candidates to know how they think, and how they decide whether or not to run. He has an article up on HuffPost about Michael Bloomberg's departure from the GOP and recent flirtations with running for president:

Michael Bloomberg's decision to leave the Republican Party, to which he never properly belonged and only used as a political rest stop, was a masterstroke of timing. The decision not only engaged the chattering class and commanded the cable outlets, but made the network news. If Bloomberg is serious about running, the toe he just stuck in the water set off a considerable wave. He won't really decide whether to run until Tsunami Tuesday, when we'll probably have both a Democratic and Republican nominee; but moving this early creates a media and political environment in which he can test a potential candidacy. You can bet that within a week or two we will see general election polls with 3-way match-ups to gauge the Bloomberg effect. And he won't even have to pay for them.

Hanging back has certainly succeeded for Fred Thompson in the scramble for the Republican nomination, and it looks like it could work out well for Bloomberg, too. Will he decide to run? As Fz has pointed out, he's given mixed signals on the matter. Shrum believes that Bloomberg doesn't want to run just for vanity's sake (apparently, he's no Ralph Nader), but only if he thinks he has a shot:

My guess is that Bloomberg will do a tough analysis of whether he could carry enough targeted states where he could win with 37, 38, 39 percent of the vote -- even states like Ohio and West Virginia, where he could never prevail in a two-way race because of his position on gun control.

The question for him may not be whether the odds are in his favor -- they're not -- but whether he has some reasonable prospect of reaching the White House. That depends too on how satisfied or dissatisfied voters are with the major party choices. 2008 will be a year of change, and if both the Democrat and Republican look like establishment choices, Bloomberg could be the clear tribune of change.

The question is, will Bloomberg be a spoiler or a contender? It's difficult to tell before he jumps in just how much of a chance he'll have. What are the risks? Shrum asks:

If Bloomberg runs and doesn't win, who does he hurt? He certainly doesn't want to help Giuliani mount the inagural platform on January 20, 2009. He probably doesn't have to worry about that, since the Republicans aren't likely to nominate a pro-choice candidate the same year the Democrats offer a presidential nominee who opposes abortion rights. But as he and his advisors crunch the numbers, he may learn that he's likely to drain votes from almost any Democrat, without gaining enough of them to win himself. Does the pro-choice, socially liberal Bloomberg really want to be responsible for electing another Supreme Court-packing, gay-bashing, gun-loving, domestic-program-slashing President?

Now, not everyone agrees that a Bloomberg candidacy would hurt the Democrats. Chuck Todd and friends over at First Read have a different opinion:

Looking at voting patterns and the strength of both parties' bases, a true three-way race may help the Democrats more than the Republicans. Why? It’s simple -- the South. The irony of a Bloomberg candidacy is that it could make the Democrats more competitive in the South because their 35% base vote in the South is made up of die-hard Democrats.

Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg at NRO leans towards Shrum's way of thinking (that a Bloomberg candidacy would help the Republicans), but admits:

I have no idea what a Bloomberg candidacy would do to the race come the Spring. But I'm pretty sure no one else does either.

Ah, premature speculation. I love it. Because without it, we political bloggers would have nothing to do all summer!

Maybe I'm Wrong About Bloomberg

As always, I refer you to the Times. Michael Bloomberg had this to say regarding the circumstances under which he would consider running for president:

If everyone in the world was dead and I was the only one alive? Sure.

I'm questioning myself and my assertion that Bloomberg will run in 2008. This is a very powerful thing to say, and something that will be difficult to explain a few months down the road. Other candidates have said things like "I am not thinking about a presidential campaign at this time," but this seems pretty frank, and reporters (and bloggers) would have a field day if a few months down the road (with plenty of people still alive and kicking on this earth) Bloomberg announced his candidacy.

However, the claims that Bloomberg's aides are researching the potential for an independent campaign (see the Times, once again) can't be completely unfounded. And indeed, such behind the scenes research (not to mention his recent nation-wide travel) is hard to square with Bloomberg's comments. One reporter confronted him about this apparent contradiction:

A reporter asked if it was appropriate for city employees “to be on the city payroll when they’re spending a good amount of their time” researching ballot access.

The mayor was curt, as he often is when challenged: “If you’d stop asking me about presidential campagins, they wouldn’t be spending their time on them.” He said he did not know of any city-employed lawyers working on ballot access and asserted that there was “no substance to your question.”

Mr. Bloomberg defended his extensive travel around the country, saying that issues like illegal guns and domestic security that are central to New York City are also important national concerns.

So, city employees (i.e. Bloomberg aides) are researching ballot access because reporters keep asking Bloomberg about a possible campaign? Given that Bloomberg is the mayor, it seems that he, and not reporters, would dictate how his own aides spend their time. And he is travelling the country because he wants to make the world a better place? Well, that may be true, but politicians, even when they are sincere about their desire to see America improve, typically want to be rewarded for that sincerity or at least have the ambition to try to be on the forefront of bringing about those changes.

So, I don't know what to think these days. Michael Bloomberg, you are a man of mystery.

Michael Bloomberg is Now Officially an Independent

Once again, I refer you to the New York Times. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg released this statement:

I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city.

A nonpartisan approach has worked wonders in New York: we’ve balanced budgets, grown our economy, improved public health, reformed the school system and made the nation’s safest city even safer.

We have achieved real progress by overcoming the partisanship that too often puts narrow interests above the common good. As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face.

Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology. Working together, there’s no limit to what we can do.

This fully convinces me that Bloomberg will indeed run for President as an Independent in 2008. The last three paragraphs sound more like a presidential candidate's stump speech than a simple announcement of a change in party affiliation. Especially when he says "any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles." This sounds like an attack on the relationship between the Bush Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress. And it suggests that it will take an independent as President (or as the Chief "elected executive") to move beyond this sort of stalemate. And "there's no limit to what we can do?" That sounds like the kind of phony optimism you'd hear Mitt spouting at one of his campaign rallies.

Why would a mayor, two years into his second term, up and change parties? For symbolic reasons? I doubt it. This seems more like Fred Thompson's "testing the waters" BS than anything else. I imagine he will announce an Independent candidacy for President within the next few months. And while I don't think he has any chance at winning, I think it's safe to assume that he would have the best chance of any third party candidate since Ross Perot.

UPDATE: Jake Trapper over at Political Punch cites a relevant quote from Michael Bloomberg:

I have no plans to announce a candidacy because I plan to be mayor for the next nine hundred and twenty six days.

I feel like we've heard things very similar to that from now-announced candidates in the past. So, take from that what you will.

Hagel "Not Happy" with the Republican Party

The Times has a brief but interesting article about Senator Chuck Hagel's feelings about his own party. He said that the party has “been hijacked by a group of single-minded, almost isolationist insulationists, power-projectors.” He went on to say, "“I am not happy with the Republican Party today. It has drifted from the party of Eisenhower, of Goldwater, of Reagan, the party that I joined. It isn’t the same party.” Interestingly, he said that a "credible third-party candidate" running for president would benefit the United States. He has been considering a run for president for a while now, so this adds an interesting wrinkle. If he does decide to run, will it be as a Republican or an Independent? I couldn't imagine he would run as a Republican. Insulting your own party is no way to win a primary election. An independent run by Hagel (a Hagel-Bloomberg ticket, perhaps?) would make for an interesting election. Like Hagel said, “The system needs to be shaken up.”

On Third Parties and Polling

In a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, 58% of respondents said that it would be good for the United States if there were a truly competitive third party. Only 23% said no.

Here we see a perfect example of the inherent flaw in polling. Polling is hypothetical. If we asked, for instance, "would you consider voting third party in 2008?" I guarantee that we would not see 58% of respondents saying "yes." And on Election Day, I guarantee that we'd see an even fewer amount of people actually following through. So, this poll would lead us to believe that 58% of Americans support the notion of a legitimate third party. However, I think it is fair to assume that they would not support an "illegitimate" third party (e.g. the Green Party, the Constitution Party, etc.). However, the only way for a third party to become legitimate is by gaining more supporters. And that's the problem with building third parties. No one wants to support a loser. I'm one of those people. Despite the fact that I may agree with Ralph Nader on many things, I would more readily vote Republican than vote Green.

So, in other words, people want an established third party, but do not want to work to establish a third party. How can we fix this? Well, first of all, the image of the third party has to change. We envision all of the wackos whose only goals are to legalize marijuana or to ban sodomy. But, we should look to Joe Lieberman. The only way a third party will be effective is if it is moderate. A liberal third party simply pulls votes away from Democrats, letting the Republicans win (remember 2000?), and a conservative third party would pull votes away from Republicans, letting the Democrats win. So, we need a moderate third party, pulling votes away from both parties, allowing itself to win.

Easier said than done, of course. But, I think Lieberman's victory last November might be cause for optimism. Seeing moderate politicians bite the dust in favor of ideologues is sad, even when I agree more with the ideologues. The moderate Democrat and the moderate Republican are dying breeds. Lieberman had to go independent, Lincoln Chafee lost his seat, in 2004 Arlen Specter faced an extremely close primary fight. I could probably count the number of moderates in the Senate on my two hands.

And that's absurd. Americans are a moderate bunch, but the two party system caters to ideologues. We desperately need a moderate third party to ease the constant political stalemate in Washington and to bring more rationality to our government. I think a Bloomberg independent run in 2008 might spice things up a bit. I don't think he'd win, but we need more moderates running as independents to get the American public used to the notion that independent doesn't mean crazy.

Don't get me wrong; I'm registered Democrat, and I'll probably always vote Democrat, but I think that a moderate third party (regardless of how I vote) would benefit our political system greatly. Of course, the electoral college would need some reworking (run-off elections?), but we can deal with that later.