Watch Bloomberg
Everybody I know is talking about John Heilemann's New York magazine cover story, where the author lays out an interesting scenario in which Sarah Palin ends up as the forty-fifth president. The speculation about Palin's presidential ambitions is intriguing, but it wasn't what I took away from the piece. Heilemann's reporting on Michael Bloomberg's presidential ambitions is far more important.
Palin's political operation is a tightly knit circle that is not known for friendly relations with the mainstream media. So Heilemann had to rely on interviews with Republican strategists in his attempt to divine her plans. No offense to these strategists, but they don't really know what they're talking about. Palin has arranged things in such a way that there are only two people in the world who know what she's really thinking about 2012. Their names are Todd and Sarah Palin.
Mayor Bloomberg is different. He's a much more conventional political figure--indeed, in many ways, he embodies the current fashionable opinions of America's trendsetters. His political team is similarly conventional (not that there's anything wrong with that!). They play by the rules of American politics. They talk to the press.
What you learn from Heilemann's sources is that Bloomberg is seriously considering a presidential run; that his close aide Kevin Sheekey is "eagerly monitoring" Americans Elect, a group that plans to hold a "web-based convention" to nominate a "balanced presidential ticket" and place it on the 2012 ballot in all 50 states; and that, if he runs, Bloomberg is prepared to spend between $1 to $3 billion on his campaign.
Yes, $1 to $3 billion. For some perspective, Barack Obama and John McCain spent $1.3 billion combined in 2008. George Will estimates that total spending by all parties and outside groups in the 2010 cycle may reach a record $4.2 billion. In other words, Michael Bloomberg may be prepared to spend in 2012 almost as much as the entire country spent on politics in 2010. There is simply no way to estimate the impact Bloomberg's billions would have on the 2012 election. It's never been done before.
Recently, Peter Beinart noted that every one-term president since WWII has faced a significant primary challenge when they ran for reelection. For a variety of reasons, Obama is unlikely to face a significant internal challenge to his authority. But wouldn't a Mike Bloomberg run be, in some sense, the equivalent of a Democratic primary challenge? The guy is a conventional liberal, after all. He's closely linked to the Clintonites. If he ran, it would mean that Obama has lost the support of the so-called pragmatic center.
Michael Bloomberg probably won't be president. He probably won't make Sarah Palin president. But he does have enough money and ambition to split the Democratic party, take a significant chunk of independents, and deny Barack Obama a second term. Watch him.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Watch Bloomberg
I think we have another candidate for EJ's revised elites test:
Does everyone you know talk about the New York Magazine cover story?
(Sorry Matt -- I love your posts and your perspective but I couldn't resist...)
Re: Watch Bloomberg
Bloomberg's been talking about running for president every since first becoming mayor, of course, but I'd sort of assumed--just that, actually; assumed--that his poor showing in his last re-election campaign had doomed his prospects for higher office. How many tens of millions did he spend on that campaign? And he merely dribbled past his opponent, Democrat Bill Thompson, 50.6 to 46 percent, even though Thompson bought scarcely any advertising time at all.
Am I wrong? Did Bloomberg see something in his 2009 election results that I missed?
Re: Watch Bloomberg
Peter, Bloomberg spent more than $100 million on his mayoral campaign, and as you note he still barely squeaked past 50 percent. It goes to show you that money is necessary but not sufficient in politics. For another example, take Meg Whitman, who's spent close to $120 million on her campaign and still trails Jerry Brown.
Most people would look at the 2009 NYC result and come to the conclusion that his career in politics has plateaued. But Michael Bloomberg is not most people. He is an incredibly, filthy rich and powerful person who is used to getting his way. This is a man who overturns a term limits law, wins reelection, then comes out for term limits again. He's so in love with power that the opinions of voters matter little to him.
In a normal world, that wouldn't be a winning platform. But we do not live in a normal world. And I have a feeling that in 2012, there will be many voters who want an alternative from Obama's liberalism on the one hand and Tea Party populism on the other. They may be tempted by Bloomberg's version of liberalism instead.
May '10
Re: Watch Bloomberg
Florida has Charlie Crist. Must we all have Michael Bloomberg?
Jul '10
Re: Watch Bloomberg
NY GOP backed liberal Democrat-turned-Republican Bloomberg as a successor to Guiliani for the simple reason that he was willing to finance his own campaign. If this or anything else makes Bloomberg a viable candidate against Obama in 2012, then Paul Krugman is right, for a change, and the GOP "is a party of stupid." For a really mind blowing combination, how about Bloomberg/Romney in 2012? Oy.
Jul '10
Re: Watch Bloomberg
Nobody from New York City could be elected president. Even Chicago is out now. In addition, Bloomberg is fully an inch and a half shorter than Jimmah Carter.
Oct '10
Re: Watch Bloomberg
As long as the republicans nominate somebody a)acceptable to libertarians and independents b)and whose last name is not Palin, then a Bloomberg run won't hurt GOP chances.
Edited on Oct 27, 2010 at 7:45pmJun '10
Re: Watch Bloomberg
Bloomberg has enough ego to run, for sure. But he is enough of a liberal that he would not act as a spoiler to allow the election of a conservative. As soon as Bloomberg saw that his being in the race would allow a President Palin, he would drop out and endorse Obama, or not endorse him but in a way that achieved the same thing.
Oct '10
Re: Watch Bloomberg
A Bloomberg candidacy would be a non-factor, much like John Anderson in 1980.