Bloomberg for President?

January 8, 2008
Truly, a week is an eternity in politics.

Obama’s Surge Deflates Forum and Talk of a Bloomberg Run
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and NICHOLAS CONFESSOREThe momentum of Barack Obama’s campaign seemed to steal energy from an event that had the potential to be a big moment for Michael Bloomberg’s potential presidential bid.

Mr. Obama has stressed that he wants to move beyond gridlocked politics and usher in an era of national unity. A key organizer of the effort to draft Mr. Bloomberg for a presidential run acknowledged in an interview on Monday that that Mr. Obama’s rise could be problematic.
“Obama is trying to reach out to independent voters, and that clearly would be the constituency that Mike Bloomberg would go after,” said Andrew MacRae, who heads the Washington chapter of Draft Mike Bloomberg for President 2008. “An Obama victory does not make it impossible, but it certainly makes it more difficult.”
December 28, 2007
It’s good to know that some people are thinking outside the box.
By The Editorial Board of the New York Times
As the candidates slog through the snow and chicken dinners of Iowa and New Hampshire, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, a self-made billionaire, has inspired speculation that he could be a late, self-financed entry.
The buzz seems to have gotten louder lately. That could reflect dissatisfaction with the field in either party, or the tendency of some political observers to try to stir the pot. (These include people who remain unpersuaded that Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, has really moved on).
For his part, Mr. Bloomberg has spritzed, but not doused speculation. He has noted, for example, that getting on state ballots this far into the game is not so difficult. Mr. Bloomberg’s mayoral win in 2001 was only possible with some fancy political gymnastics. A lifelong Democrat who had never held public office, he turned Republican to bypass his former party’s crowded and contentious mayoral primary. After securing a second term, he left the G.O.P. last summer and became an independent.
Mr. Bloomberg has also been pumping up his profile, both nationally and internationally. During his first term, his travel away from the city was mostly weekend trips to his Bermuda getaway. Now he is traveling the world, and recently addressed the U.N. climate summit in Bali.
He has also been studying Spanish, and he is reportedly being schooled in foreign affairs by a former Clinton administration official. When the declared presidential candidates commented on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, Mr. Bloomberg also issued a statement.
He is also reported to be having lots of phone chats with Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, with strong foreign policy credentials, who has been critical of his own party. Mr. Hagel has indicated he could see himself running for vice president on an independent ticket with the mayor.
Mr. Bloomberg can certainly afford to run. Back-of-the-envelope calculations for a self-financed Bloomberg campaign have reached as high as $2 billion. With a fortune estimated at between $5 billion and $13 billion, he could easily take the hit.
How would a Bloomberg run change the race? The hypotheticals on that hypothetical are all over the lot. Some say that as a New Yorker and a longtime Democrat he would steal votes from the Democratic nominee and might throw the election to the Republican, Nader-style. Others say that as a Republican (until recently) and wealthy type, he might — especially with a Republican running mate — take more votes from the Republican nominee.
It is hard to imagine any third party candidate winning. The question then is whether a high-achiever like Mr. Bloomberg would get in the race to place or show.
Comments are well worth reading.
Samples:
(1) Why is it so hard to imagine any third party candidate could win? Perot, a somewhat crazy billionaire, who ran with a certifiably insane VP candidate, who spent under $100 million, who dropped out of the race for some crazy conspiracy regarding Republicans and his daughter’s wedding in July after leading Bush and Clinton in June, only to jump back in GOT 19%.
(2) … it’s hard to imagine a major party disappearing and a new one emerging to take it’s place.
Yet, this situation has happened three times in this country:
– The Federalists became the Whigs (pulling from both sides)
And the Whigs became the Republicans (pulling from both sides)
so, it’s not unforseeable that perhaps the Republicans will become the???
Unity Party? The Independence Party? The Moderate Party? the BLOOMBERG PARTY????
Once again, (you remember the tune..
the Federalists became the Whig-ers
And the Whig-ers became the ‘Publicans
And the ‘Publicans became the BLOOMBERGs
And “there’s nothing new under the sun”
[to quote a wise man]