The Republican's Secret Weapon in '08-a Bloomberg Run

I find it interesting that Democratic strategist Bob Shrum has already announced that Mike Bloomberg can't win as an independent. He is correct of course but what he conveniently fails to mention is a Bloomberg Presidential run as an independent would be horrible for Democrats and great for Republicans.

Mike Bloomberg's handlers have quietly been looking into the possibility of a Bloomberg run in 2008. Their attitude is why not. He has astronimically high ratings in the largest city in the country and was able to win re-election by an overwhelming margin in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans 6-1 and the electorate is clamoring for bi-partisanship. Ross Perot was actually leading briefly in 1992 and Bloomberg, not only has the advantages that Perot has of being a successful businessman who is beholden to no one but actually has a successful political career and is less gaffe prone.

I will try and blog in more detail on this subject at a later date (especially if it becomes increasingly likely that it will happen) but it is likely that socially liberal, pro-business Democrats are going to be frusturated with the Democratic nominee, who is likely to engage in populist economic rhetoric while ignoring issues like abortion and gun control and kind of equivocating on issues like gay marriage. Mike Bloomberg, who claims to be a "centrist" (which he is for New York City), is actually more socially liberal than almost any credible Democrat challenger.

There are plenty of Democrats, especially amongst the superwealthy, that don't like the Democrats rhetoric on free trade. These include influential executives like Marc Andreessen, Robert Rubin, Mort Zuckerman, and Ron Burkle. Influential media people like: Peter Beinart, Tom Friedman, and Jacob Weisberg. As Marc Andreessen put it about the Kerry campaign, "I was also not very happy to be called a "Benedict Arnold" traitor in his speeches."

Why would these socially liberals who don't like Democratic economic rhetoric (and possible policies) and tend to be more hawkish in a liberal way in international affairs want someone like John Edwards when they can have Mike Bloomberg? Why would they not want someone who is unabashly pro-gun control, pro-choice, will have a litmus test for judges (Bloomberg opposed John Roberts), pro-gay mariage, pro-Israel, and will push for more free trade agreements and likely have a economic policy similar to "Rubineconomics"?

If Bloomberg can demonstrate that he has any chance of winning many of these high-profile donors will either back him or sit the race out. While Bloomberg may draw some socially liberal Republicans; this is more likely to be in blue states or among Republicans who are now starting to vote Democratic in Presidential elections anyway and is unlikely hurt the Republican candidate in the general election.

However, he has the potential to swing states like Pennsylvania to the Republicans where he can cut into the Democratic lead in places like the mainline and also potentially make states like Florida less competitive for Democrats by cutting into their vote in traditional strongholds like South Florida. Similar to liberal Republican turned independent John Anderson's run in 1980, a Bloomberg run could be very good news for Republicans.