I've always felt the only reason Bloomberg changed from Democrat to Republican is because it helped him get elected mayor of New York City. Now that he's contemplating a run for president, that label does him no good. His two-time flip-floppery is rank opportunism if you ask me. If he makes a serious go at it, it could be huge if the GOP nominates a viable candidate that could take advantage of Bloomberg siphoning off a chunk of Democratic voters. Of course, if the GOP is determined to shoot itself in the head and lose in a landslide, it won't matter. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/mayor-bloomberg-quits-the-gop/ June 19, 2007, 6:21 pm Mayor Bloomberg Quits the G.O.P. By Adam Nagourney Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced tonight that he is quitting the Republican party and changing his affiliation to independent. The announcement came after Mr. Bloomberg gave a speech denouncing partisan gridlock in Washington, stirring renewed speculation that he is preparing to run as an independent or third-party candidate in 2008. “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,” he said in a statement issued while he was in California delivering political speeches. “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.” The full text of his announcement is on the new City Room blog. Mr. Bloomberg is a former Democrat who won the New York City mayoralty in 2001 running as Republican. The mayor, who cannot seek a third term, has said he had no plans to run for president, but has declined to shut the door completely on a White House bid. “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,” he said. “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.'’ Mr. Bloomberg’s announced his decision after he a campaign-style swing through California in which he gave a series of speeches that clearly previewed what aides have long said would be the thematic underpinnings of a Bloomberg presidential campaign, should he decide to run. He presented himself as an antidote to partisan gridlock in Washington, suggesting that not withstanding his party affiliation, he had brought non-partisan government to New York. “When you go to Washington these days, you can feel a sense of fear in the air, the fear to do anything or say anything that might affect the polls or give the other side the advantage or offend a special interest group,’’ Mr. Bloomberg said. “The federal government isn’t out front - it’s cowering in the back of the room.’’ Should Mr. Bloomberg end up not running for president or any other office, the announcement could become an interesting footnote to one of the more unusual mayoralties in a city that has produced a series of memorable mayors. However, it was immediately viewed – by many of his prospective rivals – as presenting a major jolt to the presidential campaign. Mr. Bloomberg has a huge personal fortune and never shown any reluctance to used it on advancing his career: He spent $150 million on his two bids for mayor. He would have no problem financing his own campaign. What is more, Mr. Bloomberg has arguably at least as strong a claim on the prosperity that New York City has enjoyed as his predecessor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who is seeking the Repulican nomination. If Mr. Bloomberg decides to run as an independent or third-party candidate, he might find that he enjoys the benefits of New York City successes without the ideological burdens Mr. Giuliani has faced in trying to win the Republican nomination while being identified with such positions as supporting abortion, gay rights and gun control. That said, several analysts have argued that a third-party candidacy by Mr. Bloomberg could be a problem for the Democratic Party. Until he ran for mayor, Mr. Bloomberg was a lifetime Democrat, and his success in New York reflected his ability to draw Democratic votes. Should he enter the race, that would mean that there would be three major New York figures seeking the presidency this year. Mr. Bloomberg’s trip to California came in a week when he was on the cover of Time Magazine and stood by a Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who like Mr. Bloomberg has proven successful in appealing for Democratic support, told a crowd of reporters that he should run for president. Mr. Bloomberg, while in California, told an audience of Google employees that the country is “really in trouble” and used caustic language in describing what he said was timidity in Washington, contrasting that with his own approach to running New York City. In his speech, he laid out what he said were the cornerstones of of nonpartisan leadership - independence, honesty, common sense, innovation, teamwork and accountability. Mr. Bloomberg promoted his approach as mayor to issues like education, crime prevention and health care in putting those principals into practice. “None of the initiatives we’ve undertaken are owned by the Republican or Democratic Party,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “They were built on the values of nonpartisan leadership, and they paid off.”
So is he trying to portray himself as a Ron Paul with money or another Ross Perot who sounds intelligent?
considering his track record in NY, the amount of money he donates and his stance on issues, he already has my vote. This guy gets results which is more than you can say about the republicans and democrats in power now.
He'd get my vote just because he dropped the label. But, again, I don't really think the vote is worth that much anymore, so it's easy to make such superficial decisions. When the time comes, I'll probably just end up writing myself in again.
Hell yeah, go bloomberg. It would be nice to see a real 3rd party/independent candidate on the ballot. One of the best things about the Ross Perot campaign was that it resulted in a number of court cases that loosened election laws across the country, another go around with a powerful 3rd party/independent candidate could help push things and make them a little easier for the little guy. God forbid, we could make our election laws a little more equitable.
bloomberg is awesome. he's hell of a lot better than rudy. and to compare him to ron paul is absurd. i dont know if i want bloomberg to waste time as the VP. i dont think he can win presidency. it'd be interesting to see if al gore runs who his vp would be. a gore/bloomberg ticket would be great. they both seem to be huge on the environment. if nothing else i guess bloomberg could run the treasury. or maybe if hillary wins the senate seat?
I was comparing him to Ron Paul not on beliefs, but in the fact he is trying to shake up the current ineffective political system. Let's be honest, no other candidate has Ron Paul's beliefs.
but ron paul isn't 'shaking up' anything. he's being his crazy ass self. he wants to abolish FEMA and department of education for god sakes. but sorry for mis understanding.
Assuming that Ron Paul won't be on the ballot when election day arrives, because one man's genius is another man's crazy ass , I'd vote for Bloomberg as an independent over the lap dogs that both of the major parties will ultimately offer us.
That isn't saying much. I almost want Rudy to get the GOP nomination just so his record as NYC mayor will undergo true public scrutiny and he will get knocked off his mythological perch as being a great mayor.
Man- I was psyched about this when I first read it, because I've been impressed with what he's done in his time here so far. But I didn't realize he could split the democratic vote and ensure a repub victory. Oy vey. I remember being here back on 9/11. The city's economy was hit hard. The city was hemorrhaging money. Tourism, real estate, business... everything was just sinking and there was no way out in sight. Meanwhile, we had a mayoral election going on! Crazy. I remember thinking to myself back then, "this has to be the worst job in the world- inheriting NYC right after 9/11." To think that he actually balanced the budget after such an unmitigated catastrophe in one term as mayor was stunning to me.
Now see this is interesting to me. I would think in a national election that Bloomberg would peal off more republicans.
In general, a 3rd party candidate helps incumbents. You saw this in the Texas governor race as well. Most people vote to keep things the same or make change. If you add a 3rd party candidate, it splits the "make change" vote. Perot in 1992 helped Bush (even though he lost) and helped Clinton in 1996. Now, I'm not sure how that will play out with the Republican candidate not being an incumbent, but in general, that's the way 3rd party candidates affect elections, regardless of their political positions.
I've heard arguments going the other way on this. For example, many say Perot helped steal votes from Bush. (disenfranchised fiscal conservatives who became frustrated with Bush) This website also seemed to conclude with that point. http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm
but mark, the issues he's strong on are democratic issues right now. environment, poverty, gun control, hell even fiscal discipline is a democratic issue right now. the reason i think many of us believe he'll peal off more Rs was because he was an R but everyone knows he's a life long democrat. two things might change that. one if its a hagel bloomberg ticket. in that case he'll definitely get a lot of the anti iraq and generally socially liberal but fiscally conservative republican vote with hagel. the other way he gets more republicans if it rudy really wins the nomination. in that case all this bs about ny being able to swing would die but that might actually help the Rs in being able to devote more resources. barring any really odd happening, 08 is Ds to lose. ohio will swing to the democrats for sure. and if everything stays as it should, the math just works for democrats.
Anybody that doesn't believe Perot took way more votes from Bush needs help. He entered the race specifically to target Bush, he dropped out because Clinton was pulling out to a large lead in the polls (and basically admitted it) and he popped back in at the last minute to distract Bush's attention and historic momentum to throw the election to Clinton. Without Perot's last minute return and accusations of "Republican dirty-tricksters", etc there wouldn't have been a president Bill Clinton. With Bloomberg, there ain't no doubt he will pull more Dem votes than GOP. On the divisive wedge issues, he's 95% Dem. His brief stint as a Republican (in name only) was just for convenience.
Several studies like this have been done, but none of them make any sense. They compare 1988 vs 1992 vs 1996 voting patterns. But what they fail to consider is that Bush's popularity was far different in 1988 and 1992, and Clinton was a popular incumbent in 1996. I think the best example of the 3rd party effect is the Texas governor's race - if it had just been Bell vs. Perry or Strayhorn vs. Perry, both challengers had a good shot at winning. But they split the "we don't like Perry" vote which resulted in Perry winning. Now this of course assumes that the 3rd party candidate is a middle-of-the-road type like Bloomberg or Perot. If it's a far-left or far-right position, then it certainly affects that party more.
I think its going to depend on who gets the republican ticket. The more far right the red candidate is, the more likely that bloomberg will siphon off blue votes. Right now, his platform is closer to the dems, so someone like mccain or thompson would gain from bloomberg running. honestly, i'd rather have the american public be more open to a viable and competitive third party candidate and still have the republicans win, than to only have two parties run and have the democrats win. unfortunetly, we are obsessed with keeping things simple and leaving only two choices and that laziness in decision making is going to come back and bite us hard one day.
I am glad Bloomberg no longer has the Republican label,...it made no sense. I believe it only helps the republican ideology because it strengthens what republicans stand for...(for example, most republicans are pro 2nd admendment rights) I feel a lot of backlash against republicans at the house/senate turnover was due to the drift from the basic ideals of strong leadership and the ugly scandals...I really didn't see too many of the far left gain, so I feel the public in general will take different leadership from the left center to slap those that failed, but will reward republicans in the near future if they can prove themselves to demonstrate the basic ideals of strong leadership...similar to the takeover during Clintons era (right after the Clinton gun ban,...mind you.)
