Democratic pollster Doug Shoen, former partner of Mark Penn, who helped Bloomberg on his two mayoral campaigns, gets his oar in:
Schoen says he is not working for Bloomberg now, but he is part of the mayor’s inner circle and makes a convincing and well-researched case in his new book, "Declaring Independence," about how a third-party candidate such as Bloomberg could run for president and upset the election this year.
As Jerome Armstrong says, "it’s in the fantasy section."
I realize it’s just business to these guys, and nobody in the consultancy class will think twice about someone just trying to get his hands on Bloomberg’s money. But I think it’s time these chuckleheads realized that to the rest of us this election is personal, ending the war isn’t just a polling question and running against a Democratic candidate (and potentially screwing up the race) should make you persona-non-grata in Democratic circles. It’s not a morality-free decision.
Schoen was also guy who advised Democrats to STFU about withdrawal from Iraq or they’d blow their chances in ‘08. Since all of the frontrunners have been forced to strengthen their withdrawal rhetoric in response to voters on the campaign trail, I think we can all safely say now that this advice was bullshit.
Update: Per Atrios, Unity ‘08 wankers reconstitute as "Draft Bloomberg." Huzzah.
Related posts:
- BREAKING: Chris Christie Declared Victor in New Jersey; NYC Mayor Bloomberg Re-Elected by Narrow Margin
- SCOTUS: Selecting Justice, A Live Chat with CAC’s Doug Kendall
- Doug Hoffman’s Cunning Plan to Reduce the Deficit: Cutting Earmarks, Taxes
- Snake Eyes in Afghanistan
- Late Night: Where Have You Gone, Joe Shlabotnik? A Lonely GOP Turns Its Eyes to You
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Jane!
Yes, Hillary heard us and “found her voice.”
I am disgusted with these people like Nader, Perot and perhaps Bloomberg who run for president for “fun.” This is absurd.
I didn’t realize she had laryngitis.
Bloomberg is trying to expand his “brand.” He bought a business news service and plastered his name all over the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health [alma mater–-we are not amused].
As I’ve said before: Bloomberg will simply f*ck things up for the Dems if he jumps in there. He’s leans to the left on social issues–although he’s pro Iraq war.
America is clamoring for a short, jewish, divorced billionaire from New York to lead us — where? Isn’t Bloomberg the UnityOHEight darling? I don’t want another “postpartisan” idiot on the national stage; we’ve got one here in California and everything’s unwinding on his watch.
And this doesn’t bode well at all:
I think Bloomberg could suck up 14 maybe 15 votes. But I don’t know if this would be from the Democrats or the Republicans so I can’t say what effect it would have on the race.
I hope you are right in case he runs. Don’t we have enough idiots strutting across the national stage – think we do.
Bloomberg will be the candidate of Wall Street. These are traditionally Republican voters. I’m not certain he hurts the Dems more than the Republicans.
She sent it out to the cleaners along with her principles but only the voice came back.
If it takes to over 60 to find your voice…. that’s not presidential material! (the woman is so self-involved)
I know your comment was not pro-hill. Just piggy-backing.
Bloomberg/Mammon ‘08
the worst monied interests in the Democratic party are the consultants
There’s some conventional wisdom that Bloomberg would draw more votes away from the Democratic candidate from than the Republican. Would someone please explain why that should be so. Thanks.
Seems even patriotism has its limits:
A key post! AIP*C hearts Bloomberg.
He recently gave funds to support a crisis center in Isr*el as seen below – and does this serve ALL those living in this country? Just out of curiousity, how much did he give of his personal funds to help those suffering as a result of Katrina, or to NYCers who are suffering from various ills? I think this speaks to where he is hoping to get alot of his added monetary and MSM support for a third party run.
http://www.mikebloomberg.com/e…..ed_expande
OT
Another one falls. Doolittle is out.
Wigwam, I agree with the premise behind your question. I don’t think it is at all clear his net draw will be from Dems. Generally folks are pretty happy with the Dem candidates. It’s the reThugs that are unhappy.
What with populism revealing itself on the right and left wings, with additional pre-election economic discomfort likely, the peasants are restless.
The ownership class is going to pull out all of the stops (ignore Edwards, Diebold as necessary, disenfranchise Democratic voters [anybody think, after the proper amount of sturm & drang the Supremes will rule otherwise?] and run a ‘Unity’ candidate) to tamp discontent down.
Because if populism doesn’t prevail in ‘08, it will not get a chance until ‘12 or ‘16 at the best.
And given the recent rapid decline in rights and economic standing, it probably won’t even get the chance.
Thanks for telling us. You just made my day – all smiles.
What adds to the scariness of this is that Bloomberg probably has a lot of hedge fund buddies who feel that they have the right to buy elections, given the way their possession of all that money validates their superiority over the little people.
On the other hand, the idea of a billionaire buying the presidential election is not going to go down well.
Good riddance, say Hi to the Dukester for us.
I think it’s a fallacy that Bloomberg would draw more from Dems. If he gets in, you can bet your Aunt Betsy’s underwear that it means Wall Street is trying to help whoever the Dem candidate is. Republicans have lost their mojo, and there are at least two Dem candidates who are willing to do their bidding.
Unity08 shutting down, getting behind Bloomberg?
Kerry endorses Obama…well, there’s the kiss o’death….
Bloombucks sucks.
Well A) because the conventional wisdom is put together by people like Doug Schoen and B) the conventional wisdom is always wrong.
I expect the reasoning is on the lines of Bloomberg will appeal to moderate centrist voters and independents. So since the core of the Republican base is batshit crazy this means, Bloomberg voters would be less likely to support a Republican candidate. So if Bloomberg weren’t in the race, they probably would vote Democratic.
This overlooks the one small fact that the center in American politics has largely disappeared so Bloomberg would be stealing votes from a non-existent middle.
As for Bloomberg, ask the Mittster what the current price tag is for ‘Also Ran”.
To the contrary he will draw largely from Dems in my view: Huckabee’s people won’t go for him, nor McCain’s (except for big corporatist types). On the other hand, those concerned that Obama or Edwards will press to leave Iraq will flock to Bloomberg, as also will those who simply do not like Hillary.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer crook.
See my 6. The NYTimes also said that in an article last weekend. I’ll try to dig up a link. Most of his positions on issues jive moe with the Dem candidates than with the hapless Repug candidates. He’s pro-choice, pro civil unions for same-sex couples, pro some sort of universal health care, and so on. But he’s pro-Iraq war, and problably closer to the DLC corporate brand.
How does this indicate wall street is saying they want Dems to win. Any populism is counter to wall street (big pharma, big insurance, military industrial complex, etc. To the contrary!
Bloomberg will draw from the money wing of the Democratic Party (who could live with Hillary, but like Bloomberg better), as well as Reagan Democrats, who simply will not vote for Hillary. Maybe not enough to beat her, but enough to cost her the election.
I’m guessing Bloomberg will enter the fray if Edwards prevails, too.
And hell, maybe even if Obama gets it, to take advantage of the Gantt factor.
My “gut” tells me this would affect Rs more than Ds, though some pundit was telling me otherwise. I was personally offended by the Okla. panel exploring “bipartisanship” as an issue. This is just BS. It’s a desparate (sp) attempt for neocons to retain some power. I call bullshit.
All cabinet appointees should be fully vetted no matterwhat their party affiliation is. I want competence this time around, not ideology.
This country needs “sensible centrism” that
will make sure that the tax rate on 2 and 20 stays at 15.
here’s a link
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..819S52.DTL
The fact that wingnuts aren’t screaming bloody murder tells me its good for them, bad for us.
OT..
Rather doesn’t talk like he is in it for the money:
link
ditto – go Charlie Brown!!
Although I wish he’d quit sending me mail asking for donations. My finances are so limited that he’s losing money on me. Though I will send more when I can…
Sorry, my link is for the Doolittle story. I do miss the “quote this comment” button. sigh.
Concur. They know their current slate is unacceptable to most voters (and even amongst themselves).
And thus, need ‘Daddy’ to come save them.
Ties right into the psychology.
Bingo
IIRC Kerry’s wife is worth something like $700 million. Do you think he is going to support a populist like Edwards? This is his attempt to appear relevant by choosing the young guy (Obama) over the Establishment pol (Hillary).
DC and Wall Street Republicans hate Huckabee because he is not a free trade/low taxes absolutist. I see Bloomberg appealing to the anti-Huckabee wing of the Republican party.
Hi Jane!
Should Bloomberg win the Presidency, would Israel control the United States?
If you really believe Obama and Clinton are populist anti Wall Street politicians, you haven’t been paying enough attention.
We all know about Hillary, but what about Obama? Is he really as progressive as some liberals “hope”?
The Obama Illusion
I really like the idea of having a congressman named Charlie Brown. Apparently he is a really good guy.
Kerry throws Edwards under the bus. It’s well known that there was no love lost between those two at the end of their campaign in 2004. Kerry thought Edwards, eyeing 2008, diid little to help the ticket.
And as I said last thread: On MSNBC Andrea Mitchell told Monica Novotnik: “John Edwards is not a viable candidate at this point.”
I’m not panicking. Most of America has never heard of him. He’s not a compelling on the stump, and his accomplishments (”I repackaged financial data in whole new ways!”) are not enough.
Bloombucks [Ego Party ‘08]
Gack — save us from the whiny voiced weasels [Bloombucks, Wm Cohen, can Broder be far behind….] who did ABSOFUCKINLOOTLY NADA to stand up to BushCo’s rape and pillage of America’s working and middle classes. Too damned stoopid to rule…those that kill the middle class have killed the consumer. Duh.
The wingnuts aren’t screaming about it because he’s a millionaire. They like millionaires. It’s a class thing imo.
This election more Dems are turning out than Repub. And Repubs are really really pissed off, too.
I really believe (or hope?) the dynamics are different this election.
Yes! And don’t forget the distrust/dislike out there between the two one time civil rights partners. This in part came about because Is*ael continued to support the Apartheid South Africa government through arms sales and other means even with the boycott. Many blacks also became angered with Isr*el over the Palestinian treatment (seeing a brotherhood there too). More recently has been the movement against affirmative action in university admissions and other settings -in which blacks are seen (overdone I should say) to have an advantage, something seen to cut chances of other competitive groups. Note: affirmative action has benefitted women (happily) more than any other group. Not so long ago there were very few admitted into law and med schools to say nothing of the Ivies.
Is Bloomberg gonna run as a Democrat or as an Independent?
It is difficult at this point to determine which party he would hurt most.
That would seem to depend, in large part, who each party nominates.
Clearly, a Romney, Bloomberg, Obama race would trend differently than a Huckabee, Bloomberg, Clinton race.
The little “reply” button to the lower right of each comment is its successor. That’s what puts the little “In response to dosido@41″ above my comment in this reply. If you want to include text from the earlier comment, you’ve got to cut and paste into a quote manually.
Without doubt.
Good point. If Obama wins the nomination, Bloombberg needs to run so that A|P@C is sufficiently represented.
TeddySanFran, if Jane would give you some space, I’d love to hear all about Muscle Man. He is continually brought up by the Village as an example of the perfect administrator for his neither-fish-nor-fowl approach. What is he really?
Don’t know how that weird dead “mailto” link got into my comment @ 57.
Preview is my friend.
Preview is my friend.
Preview . . .
Doug Shoen is partners with Mark Penn now why is he helping Bloomberg? If For example Ford Motor Company hires outside help to make a new car Ford expects that the outside help’s business partners won’t sell the information to Toyota.
So unless Hilary is in on this and is hopping to use Bloomberg as Nader was used by the GOP when Bush ran against Gore.
Then Hilary had better get her house in order and get Penn to start explaining.
I like the idea of using Bloomberg. I like the idea that Penn might be fired. I hope that Hilary is not being taken by Penn.
Thanks for the link. TPMmuckraker has been following Doolittle for some time. It’s not just that he is a crook but that he is a crook with attitude. I would love to see him indicted.
Independent. He decalred hims self that not too long ago, on his second term as mayor–his limit. His declaration positioned him for this third-party prez run. My take: He’ll run. It’s too tempting for him not to.
Did the pope rule the U.S. after Kennedy?
Edwards is clearly better on this. But yes, I think he will attempt to do something in healthcare, and to even out the tax code again, also schools (Hillary would do these things too, by the way). The difference, however, in the possible Bloomberg entry vis-a-vis Edwards and Obama vs Clinton is Iraq and the meme for war (including all the money that is going into the industrial-military complex).
I don’t know. He might get a bounce from it. I personally think it’s a little shabby of Kerry.
Narcissistic.
Another edition of simple answers . . .
He would run as an Independent. And a lot of the superficial media (i.e., most of them) would concentrate on the fact that Bloomberg had left the Republican Party to become an Independent which IMNSHO puts him drawing more votes from the Rs than from the ds. He gives a life line for those Rs who can’t stand the thought of voting for a D and allows them to vote against whomever the R clown is without having to swallow thier pride too much.
Obviously, YMMV
Edwards pissed Kerry off when he wanted to contest the Ohio ‘04 results. Kerry ultimately decided not too. Given the OH machinations that have been revealed since (I’m looking at you, James Carville!), Edwards had a point.
So he may be partly responsible for the troops who were recently killed. Sacrificed for the good of the party.
Good answer.
Purely based on social issue positions.
I think that if Huckabee is the GOPer nominee, then Bloomberg will run (with the express approval of the GOP establishment AND some DLCers who place corporations before Constitution). If Hillary is the Dem candidate, then that would also draw in Bloomberg because it is likely that the Dems will win the WH and Bloomberg would see Hillary as damaged goods (the Clinton thing who REALLY rubs the right the wrong way) and that he could suck votes from.
If Obama is the candidate, then he’s toast before he even TRIES to run. He could only draw votes from the GOP candidate. If Edwards were the candidate then he would run on the pro-corporation schtick again with the accusation that Edwards is too “liberal” and anti-business.
I see an inevitable Bloomer run if Hillary and Huckabee are the nominees. I see a possible run if Hillary and McCain are the nominees (he would think that he would be more likely to draw votes from Clinton than McCain). I see no chance of a run if Obama and anyone else are the nominees. If it is O v Huck, then Bloomberg can ONLY draw away GOP votes from Huck (the non-jesus-nuts).
Bloomberg was a Democrat before he was a Republican for the purpose of running for mayor.
in another time I believe bloomberg would take votes from the democrat, this time I believe the reverse
as jane said at the top, we’re mad and we are on a mission, we know we can’t dilute our votes
the republicans have nothing, they have no candidate that they think can do something to change the direction their party has taken this country
bloomberg is their solution, they might think he can save their party
in this ecelection cycle, I believe bloomberg takes more republicans then democrats
Hi Peterr, thanks. It’s the cutting and pasting manually that gets me. I’m rillly lazy. ;)
Hugh, I figured you guys (foulmouthed fembloggers)are all over the Doolittle story. I just threw in a linky for folks. My little contribution.
Interesting, and I don’t know what to make of it except that: Hillary is probably very happy to have the “potential” run of Bloomberg out there to scare Dems into supporting her so he won’t run. Remember Billy Cristol on his first OPED in the NYT mentioned a Bloomberg possible run in the key final part of his diatribe. Bloomberg is clearly the AIP*C candidate and threat to the Dems (and Rethugs) to do the right thing as far as they are concerned, or they will do all they can to blow the election for the other side with funds and with advocates in MSM. (Isn’t it great to have Crystol front and center in the Times for this!
Wall Street ain’t losing money on this war.
Bloomberg has an ego. He is most certainly not running to lose and allow Hillary Clinton to ascend. He wants to to be the nominee of the “Corporate Party” if you will. His constituency will be white collar middle class voters, the wealthy, Rockefeller Republicans, libertarians etc.
I think the plan is to leave the Christianists on the right and the hippies on the left out in the cold.
Thanks Perris, sigh of relief here from dosido. That was my feeling as well but I am not nearly the astute political observer that many here are. Glad to read your comment!
No kidding, and this is also in part what I fear in the new antagonism build up with Iran. If there is one thing that would get the economy to budge a bit it is more arms and other related sales for new interventions. Plus there is the red meat “War, War, War” to get people’s minds off the recession.
Voters aren’t interested this time around wasting a vote on a third party candidate. That’s why I think Bloomberg’s candidacy will go nowhere. He really isn’t known outside New York City. Garnering part of the vote in NYC is not going to make him a viable candidate. I continue to be perplexed why a Bloomberg candidacy would be of interest to anyone, outside of Bloomberg (ego) and political consultants (money).
Except, of course, Nader didn’t run “for fun”. As he has for most of his career, Nader was trying to change the system from a position of relative weakness. People who called his runs for president an “ego trip” really don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
I don’t think Perot or Bloomberg are actually considering runs on a whim, either. They’re rich guys who like to control things. They’ve expanded their corporate empires about as far as they can go. The one gold ring out there (they don’t do brass) is controlling the country, and like a lot of other people, they think they could do a better job than the bozos who’ve spent their whole lives in the political arena. And because of their personal wealth, they can have a potentially large impact.
I think Bloomberg may have learned from Perot’s run. Perot did surprisingly well for a short, nasally guy nobody had ever heard of. Bloomberg’s spent the past six years actually in an elected office, something Perot never did. He took over the reins of a largely Democratic city and sucked up hard to the Republicans, establishing himself as a “centrist”. Perot got more than 10% of the vote in 1992 as an unknown who’d never run in an election. Bloomberg may figure he can do a lot better as a proven quantity. And if he loses? Well, he’s still got billions of dollars to fall sleep in.
Yes but they can do alot with MSM. In a tight election, which this is likely to be no matter what we see now, that may be the margin.
True but…sorry, but this is the way it is. Given what we have wrought in the Middle East AND the animus against us for our objectively “Israel no matter what they do” policies, a Jewish President will NOT be able to get on well with most of the Arab and Persian ME. It is just impossible. The only way this wouldn’t be so is for a Bloomberg to go so far to give the appearance that being Jewish would NOT affect his ME policies unfairly towards Israel x 10 would be to clearly declare against much of what Israel has done vis a vis settlements, the attack and chaos they inflicted upon Lebanon, etc.
Just as the Pope didn’t run US policies when Kennedy was Prez and Israel wouldn’t run US policies (completely, or not any more than it already does without a Jewish Prez) with a Bloomberg Prez BUT Bloomberg would have a high hurdle to clear to gain any trust at all from ANY ME countries.
He isn’t going to be Prez, however, regardless of this desires.
That should read:
Voters are not interested this time around wasting a vote on a third party candidate.
‘cept that these folks are now joining the blue collar middle class voters in one big demographic — the have-lesses/once hads.
Just how many times can the snake oil boys keep on keepin’ on when the haves keep havin’ more and more?
‘08–it’s the economy, stupid. vote your wallet, not your wish-full thinking.
My prediction if Huck gets the GOP nod and Obama wins the Democratic nomination: Bloomberg/Clinton ‘08.
I know that and you know that but I’m saying that even if the media players know that, they won’t concentrate on it very much. Notice I said the superficial media which is the vast majority. They would treat him just like a Phil Gramm or Richard Shelby or any of the other former Ds who became Rs in the last twenty/thirty years. The fact that he did it because he could not have been elected mayor after Rudy otherwise is too much in depth analysis for most of the VSP inside the beltway.
Their candidate is not HRC, it is Barack Olieberman.
Does anyone know where Bloomberg stands on the issues? What’s his view of Iraq etc.?
How does Bloomberg’s keynote of “bipartisanship” sound to folks here? Just curious.
For me, it sounds Liebermanesque IOW I don’t care what party I belong to, I want to run things my way for my personal agenda. I believe it’s too early to gain any trust with a bipartisan message. I’m feeling burnt extra crispy.
That’s an analysis which makes a lot of sense to me.
And I hope you’re right. Around here, I’ve never seen so many Republicans openly moaning that they don’t have a candidate to vote for.
Perhaps I should have said that when they ran they knew they could and would not win. I DO think it was about ego. A chance to be on the world stage even for short time. People who run for president are different.
The market is down. Its down even more when the American Dollar is adjusted for inflation. Sure Bush and a few insiders are making huge bucks off of no bid contracts and insider information.
But if you are retired or just rich and living off of your investments then slow growth for your investments means that you must cut back on spending or start spending your cash/capitol.
Hilary has to start talking about how Bill ran the economy its her best draw.
How about a Subway Series: Rudy, Bloomberg and Hillary?
They must believe if you can make it there you can make it anywhere.
I’m just saying you can’t pit corporate interests against the War Party, it’s all of a piece. Hillary and Obama evince a slavish devotion to these interest, and put a “populist” face on it to hoodwink a large percentage of the base. If either one gets into the general, they are both gonna need the help of a spoiler to put them over the top, because a lot of the Hillary haters and the racists might not go Repuglie, but they will go Bloomberg.
Jees…. I am goina be sick!
I’m afraid your comment is irrelevant.
Bush is solving the Israeli Palestinian challenge as we speak. Everything’ll be worked out by the time he leaves office. Bloomberg won’t have to worry about the Mideast.
s/
It’s the economy, stupid, in ‘08.
Once had’s must vote for their interest instead of the have-it-all’s interest.
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
You had me there for a minute. It is such a disconnect with objective reality to contemplate Bush and Condi, et al, getting ANYTHING really worthwhile (for the country and the world rather than themselves) before they leave office.
I’d almost laugh if I wasn’t locked into barfing.
“I’d almost laugh if I wasn’t locked into barfing.”
I guess in the movie business they’d call the Bush administration a “tragicomedy.”
Well, the ego thing is certainly the conventional wisdom of people who don’t like him. But Nader had been on the public stage for decades before running for president, unlike Ross Perot, who most people had never heard of before 1992.
And on a practical sense, why wouldn’t you think you shouldn’t be able to convince people to elect you president in a world where the GOP nominee is a former coke addict, Vietnam-dodging, business failure who makes their last VP — Dan Quayle — look like a trial run to see how close to the handles of power they could get a total moron? Seriously, even if you were running on a third-party ticket, how could anyone get beat by that guy?
Jane Hamsher:
Thank you for driving this point home. A lot of people haven’t yet grasped that, as with everything, it’s about the war. Bloomberg is threatening to run if any Democrat gets too serious about ending it.
True Brandan. My point above: If HRC loses to BO, Bloomberg must run as IND to carry the A|P@C torch. He will *try* to steal enough votes to let McNuts coast.
Just glad you blogged on this topic, this is a very serious threat to
the fall election, these people are not going away no matter how much
we kid about it… this could be the gameplan we face next fall.
Sorry for the double, but take a look at the archived video of the
OU Norman unity conference at CSPAN, they are not kidding around.
I raised the Bloomberg candidacy with a well-known political scientist the other day. He says the same thing. Third Party candidates have no chance. It’s hard imagining Bloomberg wasting money on a cause lost in advance, so I think in the end he won’t run, unless Senator Clinton and Huckabee are the candidates for the two big parties and Clinton’s polls simply graze 50 percent. This election is unlikely to be so close that he can be a spoiler like Nader. No one is taking chances this time.
On Dick Clark’s New Year’s Eve the Mayor was asked point blank, ”Are you running for President?” He said, ”No.”
That one can be played over and over. If he tosses his hat into the ring, he’ll need to answer why he changed his mind so quickly. He’ll appear lacking a genuine call to run for President after stating he was not going to run.
Yes. Very true. And this piece up at TPM suggests how this is playing out in related terms:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/co….._community
It was the John Edwards health care plan which helped her out.
Good thing too. If she’d gone into the White House on her first day she wouldn’t have been ready to go.
John Edwards for President — Health care, even for Hillary
Don’t be fooled. Obama may just appear to be ‘the young guy’, but he’s pretty much Establishment too. It just hasn’t become entirely obvious to everybody yet.
He campaigned as a Progressive, stole Edwards speech and will be discovered to be just what we said he was at the start — a Lieberman disciple, Chicago machine pol
It doesn’t matter how he registers.
Bloomberg (Money party $$$)
Romney (Money party $$$)
Edwards (People party)