Michael Bloomberg has the potential to overcome many of the obstacles that conventional wisdom puts in the way of an independent presidential campaign.
They may both be billionaires, and Bloomberg may seem poised to become the latest independent presidential candidate to self-finance, but Bloomberg is not by any means following the Ross Perot blueprint.
The Texas businessman seized on an odd political moment in 1992, riding widespread discontent with the economy to what was, briefly, a top position in the polls in the weeks before election day. But his decision to drop out of the race and then resume his candidacy months later, coupled with his somewhat manic behavior on the campaign trail, led many to question his credibility.
“Obviously, he was a very naive candidate and turned out to be a nutcase,” says Ed Rollins, who helped manage the campaign. “But it was a phenomenon, and a lot of people who wanted an alternative to the two-party system looked to him. And they were very disillusioned.”
Rollins recalls arguing with Perot about an advertising budget, among other fights which he says revealed the candidate as completely unfamiliar with what a political campaign requires.
“He had a total naiveté about the political system,” Rollins says. “Obviously, Michael Bloomberg doesn’t, and neither do the people around him.”
Bloomberg has proven his political potential by winning two terms as a Republican mayor of ultra-Democratic New York. To many he has also demonstrated his management and governing skills in his handling of the economy and the school system. Going into the 1992 race, Perot had no experience either as a vote-getter or as a public servant.
John Anderson, the former Republican congressman from Illinois and 1980 independent presidential candidate, says that distinction will be essential to a Bloomberg candidacy.
“[Perot] didn’t have what Bloomberg has,” Anderson says. “He didn’t have a record of accomplishment in public office, of actually solving problems as a day-to-day administrator of government. I think Perot, even though he poured a lot of money into his campaign, he didn’t measure up to the mark that I would establish for someone to run a government.”
Enter the realists: Bloomberg is a short, Jewish billionaire divorcé from New York. Just about any political consultant in the country would say that any one of those factors would be enough to knock him out of contention.
But then look at the rest of the field. There has never been a female president in the 230-year history of this country, nor even a serious female contender in the top spot. Plus, as those familiar with the conventional wisdom know full well, sitting senators rarely win the White House—that has happened only twice in history, and not for almost half a century.
And yet Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the Democratic establishment, and for most watching the developing race, the favorite—at this moment, at least—to win it all.
There remains the question of former Vice President Al Gore’s political ambitions. Rarely in history has a party nominated an unsuccessful candidate again. Rarely in history has the man who won the popular vote not won in the Electoral College. But then again, only once in history has the Supreme Court decided an election. Now the reinvented Gore has a Nobel Peace Prize to put on his shelf next to his Oscar and Emmy. A latecomer campaign would probably not be the strangest thing in American political history, but it certainly would not be steeped in conventional wisdom.
Things look even stranger on the Republican side. Forget about the how the twice-elected vice president is not even in the running, or that a two-term administration has failed to produce any clear political heir. The party which has for years been a coalition of social conservatives, Christian activists, hardline right-wingers, gun rights advocates, foreign policy hawks and the urban-suspicious seems ready to anoint Rudolph Giuliani, the thrice-married, pro-choice lapsed Catholic who endorsed Mario Cuomo and stricter anti-gun provisions while mayor of New York and appeared on “Saturday Night Live,” among other places, in a dress.
The old white establishment Protestants, the ones who fit the mold of our 43 presidents to date, sit in the back of the pack, watching the race whiz by them.
So there is no rule book. Not for 2008, anyway.
But if he does decide to take on the major party nominees, Bloomberg will be able to learn from Perot’s run. The results of the 1992 race, when Perot spent $65.6 million dollars of his fortune to win 19 percent of the vote but not a single stake in the Electoral College are often used to discredit the prospects of a Bloomberg presidential run. But Bloomberg spent more than Perot did on each of his mayoral campaigns, and has indicated that he could commit $1 billion to running.
So the better comparison from 1992 might be to Bill Clinton, who got 43 percent of the vote, and then 370 votes in the Electoral College. Clinton was the Democratic nominee, but his campaign cost only about $130 million.
Bloomberg could easily spend 10 times as much, and he only needs a 35 percent plurality against two candidates in a handful of states to win. With the possibility that the Democrats and Republicans could face a challenge from another candidate
representing the far reaches of his or her party’s ideological base, the likelihood of this increases.
Micah Sifry, author of Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America, does not believe Bloomberg will run, but sees how victory might be possible.
“Could he win? Of course,” Sifry says. “If Giuliani’s the Republican nominee and Hillary’s the Democratic nominee, the New York thing is neutralized. All the regional things about him coming from New York are neutralized, because they all do. It’s anybody’s guess what the dynamics would be, but starting out, certainly he has a shot.”
In fact, says Angus King, the former independent governor of Maine and member of the board of directors of Unity08, the Electoral College system could work in favor of an independent candidate, particularly one with the funding Bloomberg would be able to provide.
“The idea that this is some sort of crazy idea that can’t happen, I don’t think makes any sense,” he says.
But, King says, Bloomberg must wage a national campaign, competing in states across the country.
“If you’re a national candidate with appeal across the country that has a reasonable chance of winning a majority in a lot of states, what the heck?” he adds. “I don’t think the Electoral College is a problem.”
They may both be billionaires, and Bloomberg may seem poised to become the latest independent presidential candidate to self-finance, but Bloomberg is not by any means following the Ross Perot blueprint.
The Texas businessman seized on an odd political moment in 1992, riding widespread discontent with the economy to what was, briefly, a top position in the polls in the weeks before election day. But his decision to drop out of the race and then resume his candidacy months later, coupled with his somewhat manic behavior on the campaign trail, led many to question his credibility.
“Obviously, he was a very naive candidate and turned out to be a nutcase,” says Ed Rollins, who helped manage the campaign. “But it was a phenomenon, and a lot of people who wanted an alternative to the two-party system looked to him. And they were very disillusioned.”
Rollins recalls arguing with Perot about an advertising budget, among other fights which he says revealed the candidate as completely unfamiliar with what a political campaign requires.
“He had a total naiveté about the political system,” Rollins says. “Obviously, Michael Bloomberg doesn’t, and neither do the people around him.”
Bloomberg has proven his political potential by winning two terms as a Republican mayor of ultra-Democratic New York. To many he has also demonstrated his management and governing skills in his handling of the economy and the school system. Going into the 1992 race, Perot had no experience either as a vote-getter or as a public servant.
John Anderson, the former Republican congressman from Illinois and 1980 independent presidential candidate, says that distinction will be essential to a Bloomberg candidacy.
“[Perot] didn’t have what Bloomberg has,” Anderson says. “He didn’t have a record of accomplishment in public office, of actually solving problems as a day-to-day administrator of government. I think Perot, even though he poured a lot of money into his campaign, he didn’t measure up to the mark that I would establish for someone to run a government.”
Enter the realists: Bloomberg is a short, Jewish billionaire divorcé from New York. Just about any political consultant in the country would say that any one of those factors would be enough to knock him out of contention.
But then look at the rest of the field. There has never been a female president in the 230-year history of this country, nor even a serious female contender in the top spot. Plus, as those familiar with the conventional wisdom know full well, sitting senators rarely win the White House—that has happened only twice in history, and not for almost half a century.
And yet Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the Democratic establishment, and for most watching the developing race, the favorite—at this moment, at least—to win it all.
There remains the question of former Vice President Al Gore’s political ambitions. Rarely in history has a party nominated an unsuccessful candidate again. Rarely in history has the man who won the popular vote not won in the Electoral College. But then again, only once in history has the Supreme Court decided an election. Now the reinvented Gore has a Nobel Peace Prize to put on his shelf next to his Oscar and Emmy. A latecomer campaign would probably not be the strangest thing in American political history, but it certainly would not be steeped in conventional wisdom.
Things look even stranger on the Republican side. Forget about the how the twice-elected vice president is not even in the running, or that a two-term administration has failed to produce any clear political heir. The party which has for years been a coalition of social conservatives, Christian activists, hardline right-wingers, gun rights advocates, foreign policy hawks and the urban-suspicious seems ready to anoint Rudolph Giuliani, the thrice-married, pro-choice lapsed Catholic who endorsed Mario Cuomo and stricter anti-gun provisions while mayor of New York and appeared on “Saturday Night Live,” among other places, in a dress.
The old white establishment Protestants, the ones who fit the mold of our 43 presidents to date, sit in the back of the pack, watching the race whiz by them.
So there is no rule book. Not for 2008, anyway.
But if he does decide to take on the major party nominees, Bloomberg will be able to learn from Perot’s run. The results of the 1992 race, when Perot spent $65.6 million dollars of his fortune to win 19 percent of the vote but not a single stake in the Electoral College are often used to discredit the prospects of a Bloomberg presidential run. But Bloomberg spent more than Perot did on each of his mayoral campaigns, and has indicated that he could commit $1 billion to running.
So the better comparison from 1992 might be to Bill Clinton, who got 43 percent of the vote, and then 370 votes in the Electoral College. Clinton was the Democratic nominee, but his campaign cost only about $130 million.
Bloomberg could easily spend 10 times as much, and he only needs a 35 percent plurality against two candidates in a handful of states to win. With the possibility that the Democrats and Republicans could face a challenge from another candidate
representing the far reaches of his or her party’s ideological base, the likelihood of this increases.
Micah Sifry, author of Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America, does not believe Bloomberg will run, but sees how victory might be possible.
“Could he win? Of course,” Sifry says. “If Giuliani’s the Republican nominee and Hillary’s the Democratic nominee, the New York thing is neutralized. All the regional things about him coming from New York are neutralized, because they all do. It’s anybody’s guess what the dynamics would be, but starting out, certainly he has a shot.”
In fact, says Angus King, the former independent governor of Maine and member of the board of directors of Unity08, the Electoral College system could work in favor of an independent candidate, particularly one with the funding Bloomberg would be able to provide.
“The idea that this is some sort of crazy idea that can’t happen, I don’t think makes any sense,” he says.
But, King says, Bloomberg must wage a national campaign, competing in states across the country.
“If you’re a national candidate with appeal across the country that has a reasonable chance of winning a majority in a lot of states, what the heck?” he adds. “I don’t think the Electoral College is a problem.”
