Bloomberg polling

by Jerome Armstrong, Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:54:19 AM EST

If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, which I think seems most likely, and McCain doesn't win the Republican nomination, which is iffy, then the conventional wisdom is that Bloomberg will run, and he's getting it ready:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has quietly been polling and conducting a highly sophisticated voter analysis in all 50 states as he decides whether to launch an independent presidential bid, associates said Wednesday.

I don't see how Bloomberg would win a three-way race, unless he were to become the de facto Republican nominee, which also seems highly unlikely due to his liberal social stances on things like abortion and gun control. Some might think that Bloomberg has some pull among Democrats, but I recall, being inside the hall that night, when Bloomberg laid a big fat one on endorsing Bush for President in 2004. Roll that one on a TV spot, and whatever support he has among Democrats will wither.

The article goes on to describe some of the micro-targeting polling techniques that Doug Schoen used for Bloomberg's candidacy, and how he might use it for a Presidential run; which is mildly interesting, due to Schoen and Mark Penn being business partners:

Schoen says he is not working for Bloomberg now, but he is part of the mayor's inner circle and makes a convincing and well-researched case in his new book, "Declaring Independence," (about how a third-party candidate such as Bloomberg could run for president and upset the election this year).

It's in the fantasy section.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

66 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Bloomberg Run = Democratic President

Bloomberg running will guarantee a Democrat in the White House.

by BigBoyBlue 2008-01-10 04:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg Run = Democratic President

I've heard others say the opposite. What's your detailed thinking?

by Nathan Empsall 2008-01-10 05:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Those in the know in NYC know that Bloomberg switch from Democrat to Republican for electability. As he is still a closet liberal, how can one agree that he will not take votes away from the Democratic candidate?

by shergald 2008-01-10 05:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Because very few Democrats are looking for Democrat Lite. On the other hand, a number of fiscal conservatives who are sick of the Terri Schiavo brand of Republicanism would look at Bloomberg.

In my opinion, the sole purpose for a Bloomberg run is to pull the Democratic nominee towards the center on fiscal issues. That's certainly the purpose of threatening a run.

Just to give you an idea, I voted for Bloomberg and probably fit the stereotype of the Bloomberg Democrat perfectly. (I can't recall if I voted for him the first time, but I certainly didn't vote for Mark Green.) I've had very few objections to the job he's done as Mayor. But I could not imagine, in a million years, voting for him over the Democratic nominee for President.

by Steve M 2008-01-10 05:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

steve -

that's a good point, but we're not talking about dems - we're talking about dem leaning indies. Losing even 10% of those would be devastating.

Bloomberg isn't going to appeal to perot voters. He's different on trade, immigration, everything!

by mcdave 2008-01-10 07:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

I assume that you are not saying that you are Democrat Lite.

My info comes from a close NY friend who had a relative that worked on the Bloomberg mayoral campaign, who gives some backdoor insights on him. I would say, given your own remarks, that Bloomberg is a Nader-like breaker for the Republican candidate. Fiscal Republicans go for him, the Republican independent; the Evangelical types go for the straight Republican.

I too would never vote for Bloomberg, given any Democrat running, even the dislikable Hillary.

by shergald 2008-01-10 12:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Sorry, wrong comment line, responded above.

by shergald 2008-01-10 12:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

I am a strong believe in third parties keeping the two parties honest. But no way in hell, I am voting for Bloomberg.

by Pravin 2008-01-10 05:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

I've voted minor parties

in four of five presidential elections.

Minor parties balance against the establishment.

However, a Bloomberg candidacy is the establishment using a minor party to battle against people powered politics in the major parties.

I don't see Bloomberg having much growth potential.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-01-10 06:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

It's in the fantasy section.

As well it should be.

Right now, the political center is NOT an underserved market.

There are two underserved political markets these days, and both are at the Congressional level.

One is for a party occupying roughly the same space on the political spectrum as the GOP, but that would negotiate in good faith with other parties, in search of the common good.

The other is for a party occupying roughly the same space on the political spectrum as the Democrats, but that would stand up to the GOP as it presently exists.

by RT 2008-01-10 05:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

How many MyDDers would support Bloomberg over Clinton?

by Nathan Empsall 2008-01-10 05:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the Bloomberg wagon myself quite yet, but it really depends on this all plays out. If it honestly gets too ugly between Hillary v. the Rep. nominee, Bloomberg will be able to play the fall guy well and take in all those voters who are tired of the way elections are run in the country (i.e. dirty tricks).

Who knows. He has to get the votes first. Then I guess we'll see where it all goes from here.

by Big Haircut 2008-01-10 05:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

The Naderite Clinton haters might.

But they are a lunatic fringe who like the poor are always with us.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-10 05:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Naderite Clinton haters might.

Not likely. The Naderites would want to vote for purity troll type candidates, not wishy-washy centrists. The Green Party will be running in many states where they have ballot status including California. Their most likely nominee is Cynthia McKinney, former Representative from Georgia. There is even a chance that they go with Nader again, but I think the nominee will be McKinney because she is a fresher face for them: younger, not a white dude, and a former elected official. Ralph has done a lot in his life for better or for worse, but he has never been elected to anything.

by Zack from the SFV 2008-01-10 05:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

I will. Clinton sold herself to the corporate lobbyists

by Moonwood 2008-01-10 05:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Wow. You'd vote for Bloomberg over Clinton because of...corporatism? How do you get more corporate than Mike Bloomberg?

by Denny Crane 2008-01-10 06:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Bloomberg = corporatism / business elite.

I really can't see it, though weirder things have happened.

by Coral 2008-01-10 07:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Really, other than the dynastic thing, the main reason why many of us oppose Hillary so much is the Iraq war thing. So why would we vote for Bloomberg?

by Pravin 2008-01-10 05:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

I'm not so much looking at the why as the what. Since when have people needed a reason to do anything? I've spoken with several active NH Democrats who have quietly told me they would strongly consider Bloomberg.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-01-10 06:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

My #1 issue is the war, and specifically ending the warmongering against Iran and ensuring that the current disaster does not get expanded even further. I have no idea what Bloomberg's stance is on the war, but Hillary's "all options on the table" veiled threat language against Iran is unacceptable to me, so I would consider it if Bloomberg's stance is unequivocably that we will not go to war with Iran unless directly attacked first. Again, I don't know what his position is, so this all may be a moot point.

by NJIndependent 2008-01-10 06:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Bloomberg isn't Lieberman, although they're good buds. But he's definitely right of Hillary on the Middle East.

by Steve M 2008-01-10 07:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

If that's the case and Hillary doesn't do a 180 on her position, then I'd probably have to look at the Libertarians or something.

by NJIndependent 2008-01-10 07:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

I am glad you bring that up, because with the way Bush has been speaking about Iran the past two days is the same type of rhetoric he used before we went into Iraq. And with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf incident, I am sure the Clinton campaign hope the Bush admin. doesn't do anything stupid. Because no matter what side you agree on in terms of her vote, it will get spun by her opponents on either side as a big, fat "i told ya so".

by Big Haircut 2008-01-10 07:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Great post, gladiatorstail.

For me, Hillary polarizes the Democratic party in such a way that if she's the nominee and Bloomberg runs, you might see serious conflict in groups of Democrats on who to vote for come election day. Obviously, if anything, this would hurt Hillary the most. I am an Obama fan, but I hope that in the end, even if he doesn't get the nomination, I will still vote Democratic. But if Hillary keeps giving me more reasons to not vote for her, then I hate to say I'd vote for Bloomberg.

It's not that I think that Hillary still can't win if its her v. Bloomberg v. (insert Rep. here), but it could be harder and not as much of a blowout as it should be with any Dem with the nomination.

by Big Haircut 2008-01-10 05:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Isn't that a little harsh? I don't see her through Republican lenses....I've followed her campaign, as well as her Senator career and career as first lady extensively. I don't care for what Republican's say about her, nor do I believe half the crazy stuff they say about her. Just because I don't like the woman that means I am wearing a Republican lens? Why don't you take the Hillary almighty lens off for two seconds before you accuse me of how I think.

by Big Haircut 2008-01-10 05:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

LOL no problems then. I guess for me, I want to vote Democratic no matter what. So if Hillary gets the nomination, I will more htan likely vote for her, but I am not going to rally out and hear her speak or anything like that.

But I am just throwing out there the possibility of how some people feel and could feel.

by Big Haircut 2008-01-10 05:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Jerome-

How can you say its "likely" Hillary will win. I'd say its 50/50 because it all depends on NV and SC (where Obama leads). He wins those and we're back to even.

Frankly, I still don't understand your Hillary fetish. Yeah, she's OK and I'll vote for her and all, but doesn't Terry McCauliffe, etc. make you ill? Isn't she surrounded by the same crowd that did in Dean? How can you support that?

by jgkojak 2008-01-10 05:31AM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

It's a prediction, that Clinton will win, what don't you understand about it?

...doesn't Terry McCauliffe, etc. make you ill?

Not anymore than Gibbs.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-01-10 06:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Yeah, its a prediction. I just don't understand supporting Clinton in the primary. Seems to go against the idea of changing the internal dynamic of the Democratic party.

by jgkojak 2008-01-10 06:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

Her negatives are way too high. The Republicans know that and are savoring for a chance to savage her.

by Moonwood 2008-01-10 05:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

Yes, but to some extent, the Rep's negatives are the war are higher. All that means is it won't be a landslide victor with Hillary. Which is fine--we need something to keep the adrenaline up :)

by Big Haircut 2008-01-10 05:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

Then we can't win with Obama either because his negatives are the same or even higher than Clintons.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 05:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

Wrong - Obama doesn't have the Clinton negatives - This is Hillary's current tactic - I'm bad but so are you. BS

by Moonwood 2008-01-10 06:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

There is some polling to suggest more voters have a negative impression of Obama.

However, the depth of animosity toward HRC is clearly greater than the depth of animosity toward Obama.

Also, the peculiarities of what's allowed to be said seem to allow people to tap into misogyny against HRC in a meaner way than the racism against Obama.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-01-10 06:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

That might be the conventional wisdom but after NH I'm not sure. People might feel it's okay to publicly put down women and not blacks but they might do it in the voting booths.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 06:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

Are you arguing that Democrats should reject Barack Obama because there may be a large number of voters who will vote against his b/c he's Black?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-01-10 06:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

Just facing facts.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 07:36AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

Go to Rasmussen and check them out. Last time I checked Obama was 46/pos 50/neg and Hillary 50/neg and 48 pos. That means Obama's net negatives are twice what Hillary has. But, hey, don't let little things like facts get in your way.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 06:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

I couldn't get the Rasmussen data. But Gallup has Obama at 30% negative and Hillary at 48% negative.

by Moonwood 2008-01-10 07:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

No need to get nasty

by Moonwood 2008-01-10 07:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

Wonder why there is such a difference - hmm - are you telling the truth or did you make it up?

by Moonwood 2008-01-10 07:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

No I didn't make it up. There was a link a while back to the stats. I'll see if I can find it.

I'm not being nasty. I'm just stating facts.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 07:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

That is true, although that poll is the exception for now. In most, Clinton's negatives are far higher.

by animated 2008-01-10 08:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

Here you go:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/as_campaign_season_beg ins_only_one_presidential_candidate_is_v iewed_favorably_by_majority_of_voters

And its more recent than the Gallup.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 07:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

But the fact of the matter is, Obama's negatives are way different than Clinton's negatives. You can't argue that, either.

by Big Haircut 2008-01-10 07:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

Here:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/as_campaign_season_beg ins_only_one_presidential_candidate_is_v iewed_favorably_by_majority_of_voters

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 07:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

And why do Obama supporters constantly accuse people of making things up or lying? I don't lie or make things up. I don't say it unless I have something to back it up with.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 07:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

I am not saying you are lying. Why do you feel the need to throw a tantrum because people don't agree with you! Just take all the criticism (including mine) with a grain of salt and move on.

by Big Haircut 2008-01-10 08:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose

I'm not throwing a tantrum. Geez, if this is the attitude of Obama and his supporters in the GE then we're in for a whole lot of trouble. And now I understand why those women showed up in droves in NH. Any woman who stands up for herself is now defined as "throwing a tantrum". That patronizing attitude is really going to win you a lot of votes isn't it?

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 08:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Don't forget Ron Paul.

Paul is setting himself up to run as the Libertarian candidate, and the FOX debate debacle probably guaranteed that (thanks FOX!)

McCain, Huckabee and Romney all bug Libertarians (for different reasons) and will lead to Paul getting siginificant Ii.e. 4-7%) support that comes exclusively from the wingnut base. (Not many people who would consider a vote for Paul would consider a vote for Obama or Hillary).

by jgkojak 2008-01-10 06:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Ron Paul's max support

I'm thinking Ron Paul has a ceiling of 4% in the general election.

But Paul running will cause the media to cover Cynthia McKinney more. And if HRC is the nominee, McKinney will get significant numbers of votes.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-01-10 06:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ron Paul's max support

Don't bet on McKinney getting many votes. She'll say something that will kill her candidacy before it even starts. Maybe she'll start slamming Jews like she did before or maybe it'll be something else.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 06:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ron Paul's max support

One, it was McKinney's father who slammed Jews, not McKinney.

Two, if Democrats and AIPAC think equating anti-semitism with McKinney's critique of U.S. Israel policy is going to undermine her support, they are playing a very dangerous game.

I predict HRC will ignore McKinney as much as possible. Obama may try to negotiate a deal that keeps the Greens from campaigning in key states.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-01-10 07:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ron Paul's max support

You haven't been around McKinney much have you? Whatever, she's been in GA politics for quite a while and I'm sure the rest of the country will learn about her antics if she runs for President. Her own constituents had to go to John Lewis to get help with their problems. Thank heavens his staff was gracious enough to do what was needed. There's a reason she was kicked out other than her silly statements.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 07:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

this is a scenario I thought of

If Huckabee got the GOP nomination, the establishment GOP might try to run Bloomberg in some states and Huckabee in other states.

If Bloomberg and Huck combined got enough electoral votes, maybe they could sorta force Huck to take VP in the Electoral College.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-01-10 06:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: this is a scenario I thought of

Bloomberg isn't going to actually WIN any states. The damage he could do is change the dynamic in certain states.

by NJIndependent 2008-01-10 06:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: this is a scenario I thought of

Hmmm... It doesn't matter if Bloomberg will win states. It matters if he can be persuaded that he has a chance of winning states.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-01-10 07:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: this is a scenario I thought of

Your whole point about electoral math and Huck taking the VP spot DOES hinge on Bloomberg having electoral votes. He will not.

by NJIndependent 2008-01-10 07:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: this is a scenario I thought of

People attempt plans that don't work.

I'm not saying it's likely. I'm definitely not saying it will work.

It's theoretically possible. I don't know if Bloomberg can be sold on it, but it's possible. It doesn't seem more far fetched than any other strategy Bloomberg might try. All scenarios seem doomed to failure and humiliation to me.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-01-10 07:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg Is A Complete Ass

I just find this whole notion completely OFFENSIVE. Michael Bloomberg has the arrogance of the wealthy and thinks he is a viable candidate for PRESIDENT?

First of all, it's patently outrageous that he thinks it's an ETHICAL thing to do, since he owns a media machine.

Second of all, he isn't qualified in the least to be president. He can't even make up his mind whether he's Democrat or Republican.

This is just so freaking offensive. I hope voters in America LAUGH him right out of this vapid, arrogant delusion. It's pathetic.

by Tennessean 2008-01-10 06:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

What if Bloomberg is only on the ballots in a few states if he runs? When would he have to start petitioning to get on the ballot? It seems to me that if he was going to run, he should do so very soon.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 06:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

I don't see what Bloomberg has to gain with a run... He certainly can't win.. the best he can hope for is a few electoral votes... It would take a lot of money on his part and for what? Rich people don't get rich by throwing money at stupid lost causes... Yeah, Perot did it... but, Perot was making political waves for at least a decade prior... making a national ass out of himself for a long time... Bloomberg actually has a reputation to uphold... his business depends on it... Ego aside, why would he run? It would be a mess for nothing.

Thanks,

Mike

by lordmikethegreat 2008-01-10 07:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Clinton has considerable strength and backing from the very elements that are Bloomberg's base (NY, Wall Street, fiscal moderate/social liberals, those looking for competence). I fail to see what his rationale would be in running against her.

In fact, I fail to see why he would run vs. Obama, who has made such an issue of post-partisanship.

The only candidate that Bloomberg would be sharply different from is Edwards with his anti-corporate, populist positions.

A Huckabee-Bloomberg-Edwards three way battle would be really interesting. That's one I think Bloomberg would have a chance of winning.

by Coral 2008-01-10 07:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bloomberg polling

Well, but what you're saying is that Bloomberg wouldn't run against Hillary because they're substantively similar, and wouldn't run against Obama because they're rhetorically similar.

You could just as well argue that Bloomberg would run against Hillary because they're rhetorically different, and would run against Obama because they're substantively different.

I personally will have trouble believing this will happen until it actually happens.

by Steve M 2008-01-10 07:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

I'd consider Bloomberg if it were he v. Hillary

Could he be more corrupt and corporately-beholden than Clinton? Pro-business certainly, but maybe he's genuinely socially liberal, at least, and owes less favors due to his wealth?

I dont know enough yet. I'm still hoping for Edwards or Obama.

Nobody can divide like Hillary. I've been assuming I'd have to vote for her if she gets the nomination, painfully, but Bloomberg might offer me, and the many others like me (progressive, non-Clintonites) an alternative.

by Garret 2008-01-10 08:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I'd consider Bloomberg

For all the rhetoric you guys hurl at Hillary about being a "corpratist" you are going to vote for the ultimate "corpratist"? Oh well.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-10 08:38AM | 0 recs