Showing posts with label Michael Bloomberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Bloomberg. Show all posts

Monday, June 9, 2008

Bloomberg Is Back!

In the news, that is.

I've made no secret of the fact that I'd love to see New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg enter the presidential race, if only to liven things up a bit. Why Bloomberg? Not necessarily because I'm a huge fan but because he's got the money and the name recognition to mount a serious campaign as an independent, something we haven't seen since Ross Perot ran in 1992.

After insisting that he would not run for president, Bloomberg dropped out of the presidential news for a while. But now he's back, offering to host the first of what I hope, and many others hope, will be a series of town hall meetings between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Bloomberg's offer was made in conjunction with ABC News, which both candidates wisely rejected given the awfulness of the final Democratic debate. But the mayor, minus ABC, could still pull it off.

There's lots of speculation about what Bloomberg plans to do once his second term as mayor expires next year. By law, he can't run for a third term. What I love about all the speculation is this: The pundits readily acknowledge that Bloomberg could serve as a running-mate or potential cabinet member for either Obama or McCain. Really, how many politicians could you say that about? (After the fight-to-the-finish between Obama and Hillary Clinton, just imagine McCain and Obama duking it out over who's going to get Bloomberg...)

Like him or not, Bloomberg is one of the few high-profile officeholders who has managed to transcend partisan politics, get re-elected and retain the respect of both Democrats and Republicans in the process. Now that's saying something.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Political Reform, Lesson 5: Fusing Two Parties

Fusion in the political sense of the word is a controversial reform, even among independents. I probably should have saved it for Lesson 20 or so, but it fits in nicely with our recent ballot discussions, so there you go. Lesson 5 it is.

Here's the deal: Fusion allows a candidate to run as a member of two or more "parties," including as an independent. Partisans on the losing end of the deal hate fusion. Some independents don't like it either, because the fusion candidate is often associated with one of the two big, bad parties and because it gives voters fewer choices.

Case in point: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who ran, and won, as a Republican and as a candidate with the Independence Party of New York City in his 2002 election and 2006 re-election. His name appeared in the Republican column and the IPNYC column, and in 2002, the number of votes he received in the IPNYC column gave him the win. Had he run only as a Republican, he would have lost, assuming that the IPNYC votes would have gone to a different candidate chosen by the Independence Party. That "different candidate" would have at least given the voters an additional choice, some independents say.

But fusion has several advantages, not the least of which is its face-saving and conscience-saving value. In Bloomberg's case, independents, IPNYC and other third-party members, uncommitteds, and even a Democrat or two were able to vote for him without embarrassment or guilt; by voting for him as the IPNYC candidate, they could neatly circumvent the horror of voting for a Republican.

A second advantage is this, and again I use the Bloomberg campaign as an example: The Independent Party of New York City did not automatically embrace Bloomberg as its candidate of choice. The IPNYC held the cards; Bloomberg had to listen to independents' concerns, address those concerns, and pledge to make them a priority should he be elected. Only when he did so, to their satisfaction, was he named their candidate.

Partisans hate fusion, and you can see why. Running against the opposing major party's candidate is bad enough, but when that candidate has the official approval of independents and third parties, he or she becomes a much more formidable opponent. Not surprisingly, partisans are at the forefront of efforts to ban fusion in states where the practice is legal and to defeat pro-fusion initiatives in other states.

There you have it. Political fusion. Definitely not sexy, but it can liven up an otherwise ho-hum race.

Monday, March 5, 2007

Now It's Getting Interesting


There's been a lot of speculation that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg might enter the presidential race. Now Newsweek's Eleanor Clift is reporting that Bloomberg and Kevin Sheekey, his political adviser, are "meeting with pollsters and consultants to assess the mayor's chances as a third-party, independent candidate." Bloomberg is surprisingly popular, especially considering he took office shortly after 9/11 when outgoing mayor Rudy Giuliani's popularity was at its peak. What's more, by all accounts Bloomberg is an effective mayor who has made difficult decisions that have helped the city despite the potential damage to him politically. (Makes you wonder: is this guy for real?)

Six months ago, pollster Frank Lutz identified Bloomberg as the only viable candidate for an independent (or third-party) run for the presidency. Given that 81 percent of the electorate has indicated a willingness to vote for an independent candidate, Bloomberg could make an impressive showing and mess things up for the major parties in '08.

Here's what Jackie Salit had to say about a Bloomberg candidacy in the winter issue of The Neo-Independent:
The Bloomberg Revolution, as his 2005 reelection victory has come to be known, forged a new coalition of independents, reform-minded Republicans, non-sectarian Democrats, and black and Latino voters looking for a way out of their blank-check contract with the Democratic Party. An unprecedented 47% of black voters broke with the Democrats to back Bloomberg and 30% of Latinos joined them, even with a Latino, Fernando Ferrer, heading the Democratic ticket against Bloomberg.

Far from unifying or “transcending” the major parties, as current conventional wisdom suggests is the recipe for a viable independent presidential campaign, in the New York scenario Bloomberg took over the Republican Party...allied with the Independence Party, and split the Democratic Party. Projecting Bloomberg’s trans-partisan popularity into a possible independent presidential run requires an accurate reading of his new coalition—with a black and independent alliance at its core—and what it produced on the ground in New York City.
One thing's for sure: if Bloomberg announces, his candidacy will have a significant effect on how the 2008 presidential race is run—and on the way independent candidates are perceived.