The potential affects of a Bloomberg indepent candidacy.

Michael Bloomberg is a filthy rich Jewish man with liberal values who is currently the Mayor of New York, after being elected as a Republican. He was reportedly the hand picked successor to Guliani, although most reports suggest they really dislike each other. He has the reputation of being a better mayor than Guliani. He is very effective and refuses most of the perks that come with the job.

There is talk that he could run for President as a candidate for the non-partisan internet based thing they have going on. If he does, could he win?

First, lets talk about what he has going in his favor. He is seemingly scandal free. He is well known in both parties. He seems to have some support with California Governor Arnold Schwatzenger. He seems to be the choice of the internet independents and did I mention he is filthy rich?

I think if the race is Hillary vs. Guiliani, he will run, hoping to at worst deny Guliani and at best to win it all.

-----------------------------------

Let's look at recent presidential election maps.

Assuming the cities remain liberal and the country remains conservative---a safe assumption, IMO---most of the country is already set.

Dem states:
WASH, ORE, CAL, MN, WISC, MICH, IL, PA, NY, ME, NH, MA, CT, NJ, DEL, Maryland, DC, HAWAII = 245 electorals

Undecided states I think would tend to lean Dem
NM, OH, VT, RI, = 32 electorals

Undecided states I think would tend to lean Rep
NV, CO, IA, = 21 electorals

Republican states
AZ, UT, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NEBRASKA, KS, OK, TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC,NC, TN, VA, WV, KY, TN, IN, AR, MO = 233 electorals

Here is my logic. Bush speaks Spanish, has been well known in the SW for the last decade, and without debate has been very good to Mexican Americans. I think he profited from a bump in the SW that most republicans just won't get. New Mexico was still only Republican by a slight margin. which tells me it probably would lean Dem without Bush in the race. Nevada and Colorado are not as heavily Hispanic, so I have left them leaning conservative with the rest of the midwest. Arizona is richer than NM and IMO more religious --- it seems more like Utah (more conservative) than it's neighbors to the east and west. Iowa has a a school in the Big 12 and one in the Big 10. Politically the state is similarly divided. I put it leaning conservative because it does not have as many large cities as some of the other Big 10 states and does not border Canada (not so exposed to foreign and progressive ideas). Indiana I have as conservative as they have gone heavily that way the last two races. Ohio, I would put leaning Dem, but I will freely admit I might be wrong there. My gut feeling is that the Kerry group dropped the ball in Ohio. Vermont and Rhode Island have gone both ways in the last two elections, but they are in areas bombarded by liberal thought from nearby metro areas. Florida has gone to Bush twice by suprisingly narrow margins considering his brother Jeb is the governor. Considering all the disaster relief that a President gives to Florida on a fairly regular basis, I think there would likely be an advantage there for an incumbent. I don't think they get that bounce if a Bush is not running. I think Florida has Democratic leanings.

So I am saying that in a vacuum, the Dems would win most elections 277 to 254 (until the votes are redistributed next). Now lets look at it with Guliani in the race. The conservative states go conservative, so 233. The leaning states lean as predicted above, so 254. The idea that Guliani could steal Ohio, or PA, or NJ and some small state to win the election doesn't seem inconceivable.

I didn't think Hillary could win NY vs. Guliani, but frankly her margin appears comfortable. Could Obama stave off Guliani winning NY, carrying some of the neighboring states, AND overcome the racial hurdle of being the first black American presidential candidate. Based on his current level of campaigning, I doubt it.

But now lets figure in the Bloomberg factor.

---------------------------------------------

The hedge report reached the following conclusions after looking at these survey results compiled by SurveyUSA in June:

"....Bloomberg is not yet running, and has not yet spent any of his fortune, but at this hour, a Bloomberg 3rd-Party candidacy hurts Republicans.

Bloomberg siphons enough Republican votes to FLIP RED states Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and New Mexico BLUE.

There are two instances in which a Bloomberg 3rd-Party run FLIPs a BLUE state to RED, compared to 27 instances where a RED state FLIPs to BLUE.

Should Bloomberg enter the race, and should Bloomberg begin to spend money, and should Bloomberg begin to form non-traditional coalitions, these dynamics may well alter. For now, his candidacy helps color more of the map BLUE..."

=====================================

Based on these poll results it appears Bloomberg seems likely to capture 8-15% of the vote in each state. Based on the polls it seems likely that this starting point of the voting public will be independents who lean republican/have republican financial values. That is good news for Hillary who may have loyal support, but may be capped in a lot of states at 40-45% with her large negative approval rating.

That may be the justification Bloomberg uses to run.


In Hillary vs. Bloomberg vs. Thompson or Guiliani polls, 2008 Republican states Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and New Mexico appear to go dem to Clinton. That would have the results at 245 Republican electoral votes for Guliani or Thompson to 293 Democratic electoral votes for Clinton.


Bloomberg hurts Guiliani in NY more than Hillary as his base is Guliani's.

How would bloomberg do in the mid-west and southwest? Would he throw colorado and Nevada to clinton? Would he sap enough of the Republican southern vote from Guliani to give Clinton a handful of southern states like Bill won in 1992?

Certainly, if bloomberg wanted to, he could really cripple either candidate, but just looking at the numbers I don't see a path to victory for him. But we will revisit this in a few months.