The only reasonable response to this that I can think of is: why?
An untethered candidate that has to appeal to all voters and not just their party base with BS rhetoric…sounds kinda nice actually.
Brad,
I agree. Whatever one thinks about Ross Perot, he was both 1)bright to understand there is a huge constituency out there that is very angry but NOT essentially ideological and 2) rich enough to make a real intrusion into our duopolistic electoral politics. (It may well be the same angry Tea Party constituency now being reached from the right because the Tea Party leaders are right-wingers, but the common denominator is anger, not ideology).
I can’t think of anyone better equipped pragmatically and monetarily than Mayor Bloomberg to (possibly) accomplish what Perot tried but ultimately failed to achieve. And if elected, he might even be able to cut through the zero-sum bi-partisan relations in Congress that are presently making the country ungovernable.
While both “Brad M.” and Dr. David Gillespie are correct, in general, I think that it takes more than money and independence to run a good campaign. The late, great, Eugene J. McCarthy had a very good program when he ran as an independent candidate for president in 1976 (and had the good timing of “the spirit of 76”); in 1980, John B. Anderson also had a very good platform when he was an independent candidate for president. Ross Perot had both a good program and lots of money when he ran in both 1992 and 1996.
The two basic problems with Michael Bloomberg are: (1) he continues to say over the years that he is not going to be a candidate; and (2) he has not put together a program of issues that would have appeal to a large number of people. The Mayor’s potential candidacy has never progressed beyond the fanciful, dream, stage of developement.
Phil,
A number of your points are very well-taken, and thanks for sharing them.
I can’t help but think that Bloomberg has some active hand in this so-called “draft Bloomberg” movement. The whole concept of drafting a presidential candidate like pursuing a blushing bride is very archaic. I remember Perot set his own draft-Perot movement on Larry King Live in 1992. Something like this: “IF the American people want me to run, and want it enough to get me on the ballot in every state, I will run and make it a world class campaign.” Bloomberg’s hand it this trial balloon may be just a little more discreet than Perot’s moves.
Dave
Thank you, Dave. Eugene McCarthy knew that getting on the ballot in most states and other jurisdictions was going to be formidable and got a very early start. As you know, John Anderson had an active campaign already in progress when he decided to bolt the Republican Party and run as an independent. Ross Perot had the excellent good sense to mention ballot access very early on. I do not think that Michael Bloomberg, even if he is thinking about running, realizes how much work it takes to get on the ballot across the whole country (or has shown to all of us why he should be president).
Good grief. Here we go again.
The only reasonable response to this that I can think of is: why?
An untethered candidate that has to appeal to all voters and not just their party base with BS rhetoric…sounds kinda nice actually.
Brad,
I agree. Whatever one thinks about Ross Perot, he was both 1)bright to understand there is a huge constituency out there that is very angry but NOT essentially ideological and 2) rich enough to make a real intrusion into our duopolistic electoral politics. (It may well be the same angry Tea Party constituency now being reached from the right because the Tea Party leaders are right-wingers, but the common denominator is anger, not ideology).
I can’t think of anyone better equipped pragmatically and monetarily than Mayor Bloomberg to (possibly) accomplish what Perot tried but ultimately failed to achieve. And if elected, he might even be able to cut through the zero-sum bi-partisan relations in Congress that are presently making the country ungovernable.
While both “Brad M.” and Dr. David Gillespie are correct, in general, I think that it takes more than money and independence to run a good campaign. The late, great, Eugene J. McCarthy had a very good program when he ran as an independent candidate for president in 1976 (and had the good timing of “the spirit of 76”); in 1980, John B. Anderson also had a very good platform when he was an independent candidate for president. Ross Perot had both a good program and lots of money when he ran in both 1992 and 1996.
The two basic problems with Michael Bloomberg are: (1) he continues to say over the years that he is not going to be a candidate; and (2) he has not put together a program of issues that would have appeal to a large number of people. The Mayor’s potential candidacy has never progressed beyond the fanciful, dream, stage of developement.
Phil,
A number of your points are very well-taken, and thanks for sharing them.
I can’t help but think that Bloomberg has some active hand in this so-called “draft Bloomberg” movement. The whole concept of drafting a presidential candidate like pursuing a blushing bride is very archaic. I remember Perot set his own draft-Perot movement on Larry King Live in 1992. Something like this: “IF the American people want me to run, and want it enough to get me on the ballot in every state, I will run and make it a world class campaign.” Bloomberg’s hand it this trial balloon may be just a little more discreet than Perot’s moves.
Dave
Thank you, Dave. Eugene McCarthy knew that getting on the ballot in most states and other jurisdictions was going to be formidable and got a very early start. As you know, John Anderson had an active campaign already in progress when he decided to bolt the Republican Party and run as an independent. Ross Perot had the excellent good sense to mention ballot access very early on. I do not think that Michael Bloomberg, even if he is thinking about running, realizes how much work it takes to get on the ballot across the whole country (or has shown to all of us why he should be president).