The Curious Case of M. Bloomberg

A lot of people are wondering whether New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will run for president, and, if so, what his impact will be.

Bloomberg built a massive media corporation from scratch, and has a fortune estimated to be anywhere between $5-25 billion. He is intriuging because (a) he has done a very good job running the US's largest city, (b) he embodies the disatisfaction with both parties, and most importantly, (c) he is a serious candidate who could use his own money to out- spend anyone else.

So let's look at the first question: Will Bloomberg run?

I think this has a simple answer: yes.

- Last month Bloomberg, a former registered Democrat who switched parties just before his election as mayor in 2001, changed party affiliation from Republican to Independent. A speech explaining the move was basically a diatribe about the failures of both parties and the disillusionment of the American public.

- The mayor is basically touring the country. He was on the cover of Time with CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; the two have taken a lead on issues such as environmental protection and stem cell research. Along the way they have championed the cause of local government, and criticized the feds and partisanship in general. Soon, Bloomberg will be speaking to the National Urban League in St. Louis; the same group is hearing from Democratic presidential candidates this Friday.

- Yesterday, Bloomberg announced that the website domain mike2008.com would now link to his personal site, mikebloomberg.com. He said that he wanted to prevent squatters, and pointed out that mike2007.com and michaelbloomberg.com also link to his site.

OK, here's the thing: Bloomberg is done as NYC mayor as of January 2009. He's in lame duck status right now. Do the actions described above sound like those of a man ready to ride off into the sunset, satisfied with a job well done? Why follow Democratic presidential candidates in St. Louis? Why do you care about cyber squatters? Why shed your party affiliation so publicly? Why the constant talk about how "Americans" (not New Yorkers) are fed- up with partisan politics? You may believe that in your heart, but why make such a big deal about it? What does it have to do with your last year as mayor?

Maybe Bloomberg's explanations should be taken at face value. But I don't think so. I think he's in.

Which brings us to question 2: What impact will Bloomberg have on the race?

Think about it: Obama/ Clinton, Giuliani/ Thompson/ Romney, they exert all that energy, spend all that money just beating the hell out of each other. This is the longest, most expensive, and most competitive primary season EVER.

The dust clears with two candidates left to vie for the presidency. The public is sick and tired of them, of their faces, voices, stump speeches and debates.

Then, let's say in April of next year, a new face emerges. He's talking about the problems of our system- the partisanship and money's influence. But he's different, he has no party, he takes no money. He capitalizes on the frustrations that won Ross Perot (for all his bizarre behavior) 19% of the vote in 1992. But this time that frustration is even more intense, and this guy has the legitimacy Perot lacked.

Oh yeah, and he has more money in his campaign warchest than the other two candidates combined.

Can he win? Probably not, but that's not really the point. The point is, you're Mike Bloomberg, you've never failed at anything, and you're not ready to retire. And someone comes into your office and paints that picture. The time is right, you're told, you're the one guy who can pull it off, the country wants you to give it a shot.

You sit back in your chair and think.

What do you do? I think you run. And while I doubt he'll win, he'll be a more formidible candidate than Perot, and he'll have a big impact on the race.

It may seem that his votes will be split along party lines. But I predict he'll attract more Republican support than Democratic. My reasoning is two-fold:

1- The Dems want this election bad. There are (at last count) 2 fewer Democratic candidates than Republican, but Dems have outraised Republicans by more than $100m, from a far broader base of donors. As tempting as Bloomberg will be they won't risk it. Conversely, Republicans don't seem too smitten with any of their candidates. Newt Gingrich recently called the field pathetic.

2- There has been a split in the Republican party brewing for a while between the "Evangelical wing" who care more about social issues, and the "Rockafeller/Blue blood/ New England Republicans" who care about financial conservatism (read: low taxes). The latter group feels that their party has been hijacked by issues like gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion. These are not issues they care about (or with which they even agree with the Republican stance). They have little loyalty to "social" conservatism (see Bush's 25% approval rating).

Obviously No. 2 is less significant if someone like Giuliani gets the nom, but the point could be a big one.

So I think Bloomberg is in, and he hurts his former party. And by that, I'm referring to Republicans.