"Republican Strategist: Bloomberg Hurts Us, Helps Dems"

[SaveElmer]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/20/republican_strategist_bloomberg_hurts_us_helps_dems

Now that Mike Bloomberg has left the GOP, uncorking a tsunami of speculation about his possible independent run for President, it's a bit surprising just how many analysts are jumping to the reflexive conclusion that his entry would automatically be bad for the Democratic candidate.

But we just checked in with an adviser to one of the Republican Presidential candidates. He gave us a counterintuitive view: He says it's much more likely to hurt the Republican candidate. His interesting take after the jump.

Here's how our GOP strategist -- who requested anonymity to speak candidly -- sees the race shaping up with a Bloomberg entrance:

"I think that in general he probably damages the Republicans more. Not because he's a real Republican, but because here's a guy who's gonna run with business street cred, and who's also willing to be reasonable on immigration, and is against the war.

"There's a growing segment of the GOP that buys into that -- there are lots of Republicans out there who are fed up with Iraq and who aren't restrictive on immigration and who frankly like the appeal of a business guy. Look at his numbers in New York. People rate him higher than Rudy, the 9/11 guy."

What of the appeal that Bloomberg, a social liberal who was a lifelong Dem before switching parties, would have for Democratic voters?

"I don't think he's ultimately going to damage the Dem too much because there's a lot of energy behind the Democratic Party right now. People are fired up about the Democratic candidates."
More at the link

[corkhead]

1. Rule #1 for the 21st Century:

NEVER believe ANYTHING that comes out of the piehole of a repuke.

[AlinPA]

2. He needs to "get right" with the republicans and take a stance on their hatred for gays,

creationism and their 6000 year-old earth, prayer (Christian only) in schools, confederate flag on buildings, guns (he may be in bad shape on that issue and needs to flip) and make a visit to Bob Jones U to get any republican votes.

[arewenotdemo]

12. lol...a "Rapture" quote couldn't hurt, either

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I don't see him helping Dems.

More like he's giving rational Republicans, business Republicans, someone besides a Dem o vote for now that their own party has gotten too crazy for them.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

4. I didn't read the article, but he will help Dems

He could potentially break the sane Republicans from the insane. That would be the end of the election for them.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Yeah, that's possible, maybe even likely.

Sort of a Perot effect. I hadn't thought through my post very well, I guess.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

7. What is sad is that he doens't run as a Republican on a message that the party has been destroyed

I would really like us to have two viable parties again, it is important for democracy.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. I believe in a 2-party system too.

Democrats & Greens would be my preference. Then I would be a Green.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

9. Yeah, that is my dream, I'm not sure whether I would be a Dem or a green though

[calteacherguy]

6. Yeah, just like they are "afraid" of Clinton, right?

Don't buy their propaganda.

[Sapere aude]

10. If everyone thinks Bloomberg is going to hurt one candidate or the other how is it that people say

Nader did not hurt Gore?

Is it true that those who would vote for Bloomberg would not vote otherwise? That's what one poster said about Nader voters yesterday.

Anyone?

[Forkboy]

11. I think it's just to early to say yet.

He said he isn't planning on running,so we'll probably have a few months of him saying he isn't running before he announces he's running. :)

If I had to guess I'd say that he will hurt the Repubs more than the Dems though.I do wonder if Hillary gets the nod if he could attract the many Dems that don't want to vote for her.But I see the centrists being happy with Hillary,so Bloomberg wouldn't get much help there,and for myself if I think Hillary is too close to the right I see no reason to go to someone who actually was a Repub.

I do see him snagging Repub votes if they choose Rudy,for sure,and even Romney to an extent.

Of course I could be 100% wrong and he'll win in a gobsmacking landside. :shrug:

[onenote]

13. I think he could siphon off repub votes, but also independent votes

If he runs he could pick up votes from voters that have traditionally sided with the repubs for their stance on business regulation and taxes and who are genetically disinclined to vote for a Democrat (just as I'm genetically disinclined to vote for a repub). However, he also may pick up votes from independents who might otherwise go with the Democratic nominee. That's the risk

[Superman Returns]

14. It depends on who

the major party nominees are. I don't see how he can have that much of a political base if it's both Guiliani and Clinton in the general. Like I said in the previous thread, there is a vacuum for a conservative, pro-life candidate with maybe a bit of a populist message. Bloomberg is too close in geography and ideology to Clinton and Guialiani to get the support of middle America. He would only hut Guiliani in the Northeast. I think Bloomberg decides to run if Fred Thompson wins the GOP nomination.

[MasterDarkNinja]

15. I think he'd hurt the dems more

I think that Bloomberg would hurt the democrats more if he ran because of how he was a democrat to begin with and never a real republican. I just think he's got too liberal of a record to appeal to enough republicans to balance out what damage he'd do to democrats.

The guy mentions the possibility of a fourth party candidate to appeal to social conservatives if Rudy was the nominee, but really I think there would be some social conservative 3rd party candidate anyway if their nightmare 2 or 3 New Yorkers running happened.

The only thing that gives me a bit of comfort about a Bloomberg run is that congress would chose the next president if no one reaches the 270 electoral votes required, and congress would put the democratic nominee in the white house.

[radfringe]

17. 1992 repeat?

'06 midterms showed that voters are pretty disgusted with the repubs. bush's immigration bill has made even more voters disgusted with the repubs - to the point where even the kook-aid drinkers were calling for his impeachment.

toss in the scandals, the Iraq Occupation, and trent lott's recent comment about having to do "something about talk radio" and you have even more republics/R-wingers looking elsewhere for a leader.

On the Dem side we see growing dissatisfaction with Congress and hopes of action dashed. yes, there are lots of "investigations" - but if it's just investigation with no conclusion then it's just blather. The "we don't have the votes" excuse is not flying, taking impeachment off the table hasn't helped either. To the general public it's just more of the same. Think of it as buying tickets to see a concert for "X", once there you find out it's an "X-impersonator/tribute band" on stage. Not what you paid for, not what you expected.

If the slate of candidates is so great - why are the repubs flocking to Fred Thompson, who isn't even officially in the race? Why are dems nervous about Bloomburg?


in '92 - despite jumping into and out of and back into the presidential race - Perot garnered 18.91% of the vote, add in the other 3rd party candidates and you have 19.55% voting for someone other than clinton and bush-1. ( http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992&f=0 )

Why? Perot represented an alternative to bush-1 and clinton and a way for people to express their dissatisfaction with the main parties. I suspect many who voted for Perot did so more as a "VOTE AGAINST" dem/repub as opposed as a "VOTE FOR".

bush-1 was seen as being "wimpy" for not continuing into Iraq following the first persian gulf war (i.e. liberation of Kuwait) - this alienated many conservatives. His failure to acknowledge the recession alienated even more people from both sides. Perot offered them an alternative to bush-1, clinton, or not voting at all. Perot was also the alternative for those who were not happy with the main party candidates.

There is no sitting president/vice-president running in '08 - no obvious leader. People want a change of direction and they want it now. If the dem/repub party can't offer someone credible, people are going to look elsewhere. be it Bloomburg or someone else - this is a wake-up call and the parties best stop hitting the snooze button

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Um, people are fired up about ONE Democrat.

But he's not officially a candidate, YET.