Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Bloomberg: Who Wins, Who Loses?
NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg's decision to quit the Republican party does raise the likelihood that he will mount an independent presidential run. Who would win, who would lose from such a bid?
The first loser would be Mike Bloomberg himself. He will have to spend somewhere between $75 and $150 million to run a serious race, almost all of it from his own fortune. And since there is virtually zero compelling rationale for his race - quick: what does Mike Bloomberg stand for? - it's impossible to imagine that he will win anything more than the 1% or 2% of the vote that is always available to fringe candidates like Ralph Nader or Jerry Brown. Ross Perot had an issue, the deficit. John Anderson had a constituency, the traditional liberals abandoned by Jimmy Carter in 1979-80. Bloomberg will have neither. His money will be wasted.
The next loser will be the charities and philanthropies Bloomberg might otherwise have supported with his campaign expenditure. It's generally estimated that Bloomberg has donated about $150 million per year to charity over the past decade. It seems plausible that the money for his campaign will be taken from his philanthropy budget. If so, rather than supporting good works in the field of public health, millions of Bloomberg dollars will be dissipated on essentially a vanity project.
The likely winners? The consultants, pollsters, and advertising directors who - having failed to get a piece of the action from the major presidential campaigns - will keep their children in private school and themselves in expensive timepieces with Bloomberg's money. Their eyes are already lighting up like London saleswomen when a bored Saudi princess wanders into their shop.
So far, none of these winners and losers will affect the general outline of the election much. But here's one more prediction: Bloomberg will launch his campaign on the high road, giving worthy speeches about rebuilding US alliance, reforming health care, combating climate change, and other topics designed to win him the approbation of the Manhattan financial and media elite. Favorable publicity may bump him up to 5% or 8% in the polls, just enough to keep him spending money. But after the conventions of the summer of 2008, voters will begin returning to their homes in the two big parties. Bloomberg's numbers will dwindle (as Nader's did). He will then face a stark choice: accept that he's been made a monkey of - or up the ante. Nobody gets to be as rich as Bloomberg if he is not a fierce competitor. So - assuming he has followed the path thus far - he will double down. He will go negative, filling the airwaves with harsh attack ads.
Against whom will those ads be aimed? A lot will ride on that question. Attack ads are dangerous things, because they damage both the attacker and the attackee. Their main effect is not to change votes from D to R or R to D, but to depress turnout among potential supporters of the targeted candidate. Candidates refrain from excess negativity for fear of damaging their own image. But a Bloomberg in the polling basement will feel no such constraint.
The ads will be a free gift to the candidate Bloomberg dislikes less at the expense of the candidate he dislikes more.
And the candidate he dislikes more will almost certainly be the Republican.
06/20 10:42 AM
