The Third Party Factor

Will NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg Rund For President?

(CBS)  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg fueled speculation that he might run for president after he quit the Republican Party to become an independent last week.

If he runs for president — something he said he has no plans to do — his candidacy could greatly affect the outcome of the 2008 election.

The last time there was an equally visible third party candidate was in 1992 when billionaire Ross Perot ran. He won 19 percent of the vote, taking votes away from President George H. W. Bush and helping President Bill Clinton win.

Ed Rollins, political director for President Ronald Reagan and co-manager of Perot's 1992 campaign, said millions of voters were eager to learn about an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats.

"I don't think it's a bad thing to have someone else in the process," Rollins told Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer. "And I certainly don't think it's a bad thing to have someone like Mike Bloomberg, who can self-fund and basically talk about major issues bothering voters in this country. And more and more Americans today, particularly young people, haven't — aren't choosing either party. They say they're an independent, and they want to stay an independent, and they want independent choices."

Some are already pushing for an alternate candidate. Unity08 is a group that is dedicated to getting a third-party candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Actor Sam Waterston, the group's spokesperson, said that Unity08 was hoping appeal to voters disenchanted with both Republicans and Democrats.

"The basic inspiration for Unity08 is the fact that the system itself for choosing our leaders is broken, and everybody knows it," he said. "This presidential campaign is unlike any in almost 100 years, it's very, very open – so there's a very large opportunity."

Waterston cited a new Newsweek poll that 57 percent say the two-party system does not do a good job addressing issues important to Americans.

When asked if he thought Bloomberg would be a good candidate for his party's ticket, Waterston said the voters of Unity08 would choose who should represent them but that the New York mayor shared many of the same values.

"It is one of the names that has been talked about in regard to Unity08," Waterston said. "It seems to me that it's very telling about the condition of the process right now that he would choose to become an independent, having tried being a Democrat, and having tried being a Republican."

The Newsweek poll, however, found that, if Americans want a third party candidate, Bloomberg may not be the one. Sixty-five percent said that if Bloomberg runs they are "not too likely" or "not at all likely" to vote for him.

If Bloomberg were to launch a presidential campaign, which party of candidate would he take the most votes from?

"There's no question the Republicans and Rudy Giuliani, in particular, would be hurt most by the entry of Mike Bloomberg," said former Democratic New York Mayor Ed Koch, who supports Sen. Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House.

Koch said all the talk about Bloomberg has already illuminated former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's weaknesses.

"Rudy Giuliani is already doing what he always does," Koch said. "He becomes angry and upset and mean-spirited. He's already attacked Bloomberg by saying, 'What do you mean you ran the city like a business? I did that.'"

Rollins said a Bloomberg candidacy could hurt the entire Republican party.

"We're down to about 25 percent self-identified Republicans," he said. "We don't want a candidate to take away those 14 or 15 points that are probably more moderate Republicans, and I think to a certain extent a Bloomberg can do that."

John Harris of politico.com, however, said that Bloomberg – or another third party candidate – might hurt the Democrats more than Republicans.

"The larger environment right now overwhelmingly favors Democrats – unpopular war, unpopular president, increasingly unpopular party on the Republican side," Harris said. "A Bloomberg candidacy or some other third party candidacy lends a big sort of volatile, unpredictable factor in that. So I'd have to say it's the Democrats who shouldn't want that."

[kansas1946]

incog-nito,
I would much rather elect someone that had used their own money, to someone that sold their soul to the devil to raise the funds needed to be elected. At least a self-funded candidate is beholden to no one.

[realpatriot1]

Moynihan was an entirely different kind of neo-conservative than what we have today. I think antonio123 is dead on.

Third party candidacies always are appealing in the beginning to people fed up with the 2 parties(i.e., most Americans). They always fizzle out when the election draws near because voters want to be with a winner, not a spoiler. I know, I voted for Gene McCarthy and John Anderson.

An independent President would have an even more difficult time working with Congress because it would be full of Republicans and Democrats with no loyalty to him. They would both want to get him.

[incog-nito]

hypnotoad72:

Bloomberg may or may not be a "benevolent" billionaire, but what is to prevent other mega-rich individuals from buying their way into office, and once there, to use it for their own gains at the expense of the public? Admittedly this is already happening right now to a certain extent, but having billionaires directly funding their own campaign takes it to a new level.

[fredgrad2000]

"We do have a lot to lose the neo cons are all lock step that is why Ron Paul should not even be considered he did it and will do it again. The only thing voting for a 3rd party does is add to the chances of another neo con in office. If you must vote 3rd party go ahead and vote for a neo con do us all a favor don't try and make a point." - antonio123f

Do you even know what a neo-con is? Bet you can't name anything TRUE (that is anything you haven't learned from MoveOn.org or the like) about what neo-conservatism even is...Look it up; you'll find Daniel Patrick Moynihan - D-NY (a liberal icon as Senator) was one of the founders...

I'm for a 3rd party or at least a 3rd candidate because the Dems are owned by blame America first, namecalling, pacifist lefties like MoveOn.org who actually hold conf calls every morning to dictate to the Dem "leaders" (as if Harry Reid is actually a leader - LMAO!!) and the GOP are owned by the religious right that is more concerned with who marries who and what choices women make than on speaking to real issues and nominating the candidate(s) who best address our real issues. Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton or John Edwards - Holy SHI+!! That's no choice!! Either way an unqualified person who has changed their views on every major issues over and over and who changes their speeches and views for whatever audience they're in front of...We need an alternative; no question on that!!

[antoniof123]

We do have a lot to lose the neo cons are all lock step that is why Ron Paul should not even be considered he did it and will do it again. The only thing voting for a 3rd party does is add to the chances of another neo con in office. If you must vote 3rd party go ahead and vote for a neo con do us all a favor don't try and make a point.

[Razzl]

I don't think that Bloomberg's specific candidacy will make any difference here--the first 3 Democrats in the field are way more charismatic and popular than him plus any of the Republicans--but the 2-party system is an issue that comes up from time to time that needs to be improved upon.

Having a 3-party system is the mistaken but understandable concept springing from the notion that the official status granted to parties in the 2-party system is a fundamental given. But what we really need is an open system where minor parties can participate on equal footing at both the state and national level without any parties having advantages in law as in the current 2-party system. It would be like a version of parliamentarianism utilizing the American concept of personal responsibility (offices are won by candidates, not by parties) but still giving minority viewpoints a seat at the table, which the 2-party system all but precludes. It would reintroduce compromise as an essential tool of the political process, something which the tidal swings of the 2-party system have all but obliterated. It could be argued that the fruitless and dangerous military misadventures started by US Presidents since Korea would not have been so easily undertaken in a multi-party system and imperial presidencies (or, at the moment, vice-presidencies) would also be less easily created...

[realpatriot1]

Big money and big corproations are trying to hijack the vote by diluting it.

In 2000 & 2004 th vote was close enough for the Rove machine to suppress enough votes to swing it, with the help of Nader.

In 2006 it wasn't close enough for that and there wasn't an independent to dilute the vote. They know that a 2 candidate race in 2008 is not winnable for them,so, magically, Bloomberg leaves the republican party and Nader starts making noises about running.

None of it's going to work this time, or should I say all of it isn't going to work this time.

[bluestardad]

MEDIA PLEASE STOP THE NOVEMBER 08 ELECTION COVERAGE!

HAVE MERCY PLEASE!

IT IS TOO EARLY WE ARE ALL SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IT!

FIND SOME REAL NEWS!

[donnie900]

Earmarks tell ya that Congress isn't really a debating chamber anymore. But a wheel and deal kind of a broker system. You never see any scraps or fights in our congress. Thats cuz none of them care anymore about the principles. All they care about is the money.

[gunownerdan]

Big Money and big corporations have already hijacked the democrat and republican parties, now they will hijack the independent party.
It really doesn't seem to matter who we vote for, we will get the same thing.

1) Aristocracy-
a government or state ruled by an elite, or privileged upper class.

2) Oligarchy-
a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

3) Plutocracy-
a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.

[donnie900]

An elite independent is like a hen with a big *****: Only in America. And only in the back alleys.

The Independent (I) or Green party, as their often termed, got no money. They're messy haired public library dwellers and professors who turn down the big money for the "ethic", driving rusty old 1983 volkswagon rabbits.

[hypnotoad72]

Okay, incog-nito, you raise a good point.

But look at his actions - they are different than the rich politicians who take big bribes FROM billionaires.

We've nothing to lose by giving Mr. Bloomberg a chance. Look at his record. Especially with doing something about the environment than writing big books that state the obvious (he's converting NYC's taxi system to run all hybrids), it's obvious he's more inclined to walk the talk instead of merely talking the talk.

Besides, I find it fascinating that Hillary - reviled by Republicans for "socialist" health care plans is now loved by them.

[incog-nito]

Those who look to candidates like Bloomberg as saviors of American politics are fools. Unwilling to pay for public financing of political campaigns, Americans are willing to let politicians raise their money through special interest groups and be influenced by them. And now with Bloomberg, you have the scenario of ultra-rich individuals trying to buy their way into public office. I have the feeling that pretty soon only billionaires will be running for the highest office of the land.

[bluestardad]

MEDIA PLEASE STOP THE NOVEMBER 08 ELECTION COVERAGE!

HAVE MERCY PLEASE!

IT IS TOO EARLY WE ARE ALL SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IT!

FIND SOME REAL NEWS!

[notbuynit]

Both parties need their Azz's kicked. Bring him on in. Start kicking 'em.

[realpatriot1]

The only thing he's independent of is having any consistent principles that he won't sell out to win an election.