Republican Strategist: Bloomberg Hurts Us, Helps Dems
Now that Mike Bloomberg has left the GOP, uncorking a tsunami of speculation about his possible independent run for President, it's a bit surprising just how many analysts are jumping to the reflexive conclusion that his entry would automatically be bad for the Democratic candidate.
But we just checked in with an adviser to one of the Republican Presidential candidates. He gave us a counterintuitive view: He says it's much more likely to hurt the Republican candidate. His interesting take after the jump.
Here's how our GOP strategist -- who requested anonymity to speak candidly -- sees the race shaping up with a Bloomberg entrance:
"I think that in general he probably damages the Republicans more. Not because he's a real Republican, but because here's a guy who's gonna run with business street cred, and who's also willing to be reasonable on immigration, and is against the war.
"There's a growing segment of the GOP that buys into that -- there are lots of Republicans out there who are fed up with Iraq and who aren't restrictive on immigration and who frankly like the appeal of a business guy. Look at his numbers in New York. People rate him higher than Rudy, the 9/11 guy."
What of the appeal that Bloomberg, a social liberal who was a lifelong Dem before switching parties, would have for Democratic voters?
"I don't think he's ultimately going to damage the Dem too much because there's a lot of energy behind the Democratic Party right now. People are fired up about the Democratic candidates."
He also added:
"If Bloomberg runs and Rudy's the GOP nominee, you'd have two New York candidates vying for the votes of a southern conservative party. It wouldn't shock the heck out of me if you saw Catholics and Evangelicals get behind a conservative fourth-party challenger."
One Republican strategist's view, anyway. Worth chewing over, even if he didn't address the question of where independents would go should Bloomberg enter and how that would impact the overall equation.
Update: Here's CQ Politics' Craig Crawford making a similar case.
YOu know that blowhard Nader will be in sooner and later after he receives monye from the GOP.
June 20, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow -- shades of 1860, except then it was the Democratic Party that split, also because the South decided to go its own way. (Of course the old conservative Southern Democrats are now mostly Southern Republicans, so I guess there are still a lot of fire eaters in that group.)
We got a great president out of that election, but we also got a civil war. That's a sobering thought.
June 20, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this guy is probably right. There's a huge open space for a non-insane Republican in today's politics. The people who Bloomberg alienates - the hardcore gun nuts and such - are more likely to be part of the Republican base anyway and thus not in play.
On the Democratic side, the only substantial bloc of voters in play for Bloomberg are the people who generally lean Democratic but can't stomach Hillary (who, of course, might not be the nominee anyway) for personal reasons. This group is so overrepresented in the blogosphere that it's hard to get a handle on how big it actually might be, but otherwise, there's just not a lot of room for Bloomberg to pull left-leaning voters away from real Democrats.
June 20, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think in the short term, this is a huge problem for Giuliani. It will lead to a comparison between the two, and I don't see Giuliani coming out the winner.
If Rudy is the Republican candidate, it's a bigger problem for the Republicans than the Democrats.
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate, a Bloomberg candidacy would be a disaster, I think, because a lot of independent voters who might have voted Democrat will vote for him, and Hillary as a candidate will motivate the rightwing base of the Republicans to go out and vote for their guy, just to make sure Hillary doesn't get elected. So a motivated Republican base, and Independents going to Bloomberg = big problems for the Democrats.
June 20, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's me.
I desperately want to vote Democrat, but there is no way in Hell I will vote for a third Clinton term. The prospect of an independent alternative is appealing if the Democratic party is stupid enough to nominate Hilary.
Go Richardson!
June 20, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bloomberg, Hillary and Guliani - actually, that would be three New Yorkers on the ballot.
June 20, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
They'd better start doing some polling on Fred Thompson in a three-way race with Bloomberg, Clinton and Thompson.
Seems that Rudy is everybody's "defacto" nominee in all of these reports. But, just in case Rudy isn't, we'd better be looking at Thompson (the southern pro-business, fiscal conservative).
June 20, 2007 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republican strategist is wrong. Bloomberg would hurt Democrats.
Bloomberg is to the left of Dem candidates on issues like gay marriage, death penalty, drugs.
I can see him taking enough votes from Dems in states like Florida to give the election to the GOP.
June 20, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are more disgruntled Republicans than Democrats at this point. Hardcore Republicans aren't going to vote for Bloomberg, but the pro-choice, anti-war, environmental Repubs, who may have held their nose and voted for the Repub candidate will. In the past, the The Lincoln Chaffees of the Republican Party still voted for the Repub rather than Democratic candidate, so now Bloomberg, an ex-Republican, gives them a choice. In the short term, Bloomberg entering the race may hurt Obama in the primaries in places like NH or SC, where I believe Independents can vote in either party's primary(correct me if I'm wrong). These were the people he was hoping to sway with his non-partisan, new kind of politcs appeal, who may now opt out and wait for Bloomberg in the general. Speaking of the general, if most Democrats(which I think will be the case) vote the ticket in 2008, then the split in the Repubs benefits the Democratic ticket, regardless of the nominee.
June 20, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that, many of those "non-insane Republicans" you're talking about have, in the past, stayed home, which helped Dems, if indirectly. Now they're likely to come out for Bloomberg. I'd as soon not see *any* votes taken away from Dems, however few it may be.
June 20, 2007 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a totally understandable sentiment to vent and express with your vote -- in the primaries.
If Hillary is the nominee -- and she's not my favorite either, it would suck for you to have to support her. But voting in the general election isn't personal or expressive. It's about looking at the alternatives and doing what's best for the entire country, the world; or, as I like to think about it, the most vulnerable Americans who can't afford more Republicans in the White House, or our personal distaste for this or that political ruling family.
And if Bloomberg runs, some of the states where it might've been perfectly safe to vote for a third-party candidate, may be no longer. It's hard to tell, yet.
June 21, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who the hell is a "pro-choice, anti-war, environmental Repub"?
If such people exist, they won't be playing any significant role in 08.
Republicans unite, and walk in lock step as a party. I see no reason why this would change in 08. Dems, on the other hand, act like a herd of cats. Unless Bloomberg is a VP on the D ticket, or doesn't run, we are headed for a fucking disaster.
June 24, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink