Tuesday, June 19, 2007
|
|
The Bloomberg Effect On The GOP
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:47 PM
|
|
I think a Bloomberg candidacy has to help Mitt Romney, because it means the arrival in the race of hundreds of millions of dollars in independent expenditures. The Democrats will have the Soros network working for them to help counter the impact of those dollars, but the GOP has nothing like the 527s of the left. Not only does Romney have the best fund-raising network --by far-- he also has considerable personal wealth at his command, and --crucially-- a network of entrepreneurs and experienced and successful investors who believe enough in his abilities to form the sort fo 527s that would level the financial playing field. The other two serious candidates, Giuliani and Thompson, do not have these assets and have not demonstrated the sort of network of extremely wealthy and motivated individuals who will match the Soros outlays. Perhaps Rudy has a similar network, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. Thompson almost certainly does not.
Pragmatic Republicans have to realize that Bloomberg's entry makes the financial dimension of the campaign much more important, and that favors Romney. So too will the reactions of down ticket Republicans across the country worried about getting swept away in a sea of Clinton-Bloomberg left-wing ads and internet activism. The Romney finanicial advantage and his management experience becomes a very compelling draw for those in the party who see a rough year ahead made even more turbulent by the approach of Bloomberg's billions.
|
|
The support of Democratic candidates and leaders should deter Republicans from their party! Anyone running for the Rep ticket is going to fail bc they can't turn away from Bush. From health care to education and poverty, these issues take precedence over an ever-inflating military budget, and only the Dems are taking notice.
The Borgen Project states that just $19 billion annually can end starvation and $23 billon annually can reverse the spread of Malaria and AIDS. With these issues being so easily addressed, it is no wonder that a war-touting Republican side isn't doing well in the polls or with the American people.
|
|
|
I like this site a lot for many reasons, but the unrelenting drumbeat for Romney is wearing a bit thin already. The depths to which Hugh has plowed ground on Romney appears to be coloring his views on any other candidate. All events seem to be viewed thru the lens that is Romney. Can we just let this thing play out and see where the chips fall - at least for a while? If you want to make this a cheerleading site for Romney, that's your perogative. But if you continue to do so, I think many of us will need to find another no-so-over-the-top site in the future. |
|
Hugh,
I swear, I think if Romney were found drunk and naked in the middle of Time Square, you'd find a reason why it's a good thing for the Romney campaign and a bad thing for everyone else! :-) Seriously, I read your blog almost everyday and I don't recall any event that has yet had a negative impact on Romney from your point of view. Come on! Nobody's that good a campaigner/politician. Your credibility as a neutral observer is decreasing as this continues.
Note, I'm excluding Dean from this question, since he's a declared Romney partisan. Thus I KNOW he'd find a positive spin to above! |
|
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:22 PM
http://kilroyreport.townhall.com/
BREAKING NEWS:
NEW YORK – The New York City Department of Public Works has issued a “Code Red” emergency decree this evening ordering all Manhattan bathroom usage stopped immediately. The Unprecedented shut down came as a response to Mayor Michael “Mother” Bloomberg’s (U-NY) apparent decision to flush $500,000,000 of his own money down the toilet.
The Unelectable Bloomberg announced late this evening that he was formally changing his party affiliation from the Republican Party to the Unelectable Party, a move seen by most analysts as completely Unnecessary. The Unelectable Party last ran a candidate in 1992 when H. Ross Perot stopped up the sewer system in the entire southwestern United States. The resulting overflow swept Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton into the White House.
Bloomberg is famously known as the Mayor who banned trans-fats in all New York City restaurants, banned all indoor smoking in New York City, announced a plan requiring anyone driving into New York City to pay admission, and threatened to give anyone who opposed his rules a time out. Prior to his expected bid to run for the United States presidency, Bloomberg was favored to take the starring role in the Broadway stage production of the popular TV series Nanny 911.
Bloomberg’s status as an Unelectable candidate was officially recognized on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews when Matthews, characteristically, screamed obscenities at the audience before declaring Bloomberg’s candidacy the most exciting thing since his last electroshock therapy. The Matthews endorsement sealed Bloomberg’s fate.
Historically, the Unelectable Party has occasionally played the role of spoiler in presidential elections. As the Perot run siphoned off some votes from President George H.W. Bush, so could Bloomberg’s bid expect to siphon off votes from another candidate. While it is too early in the race to tell which candidate would be most adversely impacted, it is a certainty that voters attracted to a bossy, nagging, overbearing, shrill, New Yorker would take a serious look at Bloomberg.
Whatever happens, New Yorkers can count on the NY Department of Public Works to Unclog the drains.
|
|
|
Bloomberg disavowing his Republican affiliation helps Flipper how? |
|
|
I doubt Hugh will reply but IMHO, my read is that the only reason Bloomberg is threatening to run is to spoil it for Giuliani. Apparently, the ill will runs deep between these two sanctuary city mayors. Bloomberg was quoted as saying that he is willing to spend a billion of his own dollars on his campaign. He figures prominently in my scenario where an independent candidate might actually win. |
|
What doesn't, Hugh? I really, really like your blog and your interviews. I think you're among the best interviewers out there, frankly.
But you need to take off the Mitt-colored glasses sometimes. And I say that as somebody who would be perfectly happy to pull the lever for Gov. Romney.
Anyhoo, I have no idea what this means so far as campaign finance. I don't operate in that world, but I realize how important it is to presidential campaigns.
As far as the political impact of this, I think it's a disaster for the Democrats. And I don't think the addition of Chuck Hagel to the ticket will help matters much. It's a campaign that will appeal to disenchanted liberal, anti-war voters...and it may even put New York into play for the Republicans (though I doubt it).
It would be one thing if Bloomberg had some conservative tendencies. But, best I can tell, he doesn't have a single one. So the Perot comparison isn't apt beyond the fact that they're both wealthy.
Perot had a populist message that cut across traditional ideological lines. It's hard to define his '92 run as "conservative" or "liberal".
Bloomberg, on the other hand, puts two center-left candidates on the ballot. |
|
LibertarianHawk,
I'm with you. Hugh can sound like a broken record at times. Still, I prefer Hugh's "Mitt-colored glasses" to just about anyone else's faux objectivity. : )) |
|
With Fred Thompson proving his movement conservative credentials more each day, he'll soon have an enthusiastic army of supporters.
Hugh, Have you bothered even listening to his message? This guy isn't Reagan but his charisma is only exceeded by his gravitas, something that's sorely lacking in Romney's case.
Romney takes positions but Thompson's got an underlying philosophy to his positions. Only you & Dean seem to think that Romney will stick with his positions. Lord knows I don't think that. He's an unprincipled compromiser.
The thing that impressed me most about Fred Thompson was his saying that Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative fired his idealism when he was a junior in college & how it caused him to start the first Young Republicans club in his hometown. He said that he became the first Republican in his family's history.
OTOH, Mitt Romney is much like his dad George. No thanks.
Give me a folksy, steely-eyed movement conservative over a northeastern moderate anytime. |
|
|
I saw the sun come up this morning, and the first thought I had was, Hey, this is a good sign for Romney! |
|
a 10 mile wide comet was headed towards Earth and would arrive with devastating consequences, Hugh would find it in himself to say, "it's good for Mitt".
Shades of High's Harriet Miers fiasco, again. |
|
but the obvious bias toward Romney makes one wonder what kind of agenda Mr. Hewitt has when it comes to other subjects.
Does Hugh push Romney simply to sell books? If so, he needs to be honest and say so. Does Hugh push Romney because he thinks he is the best republican candidate that can win the general election? If so, he needs to say so.
Hugh's cheerleading for Romney while claiming not to have endorsed a candidate is the height of insincerity. |
|
While I think it's obvious that Reagan was our best president since WWII and probably one of our 7 or 8 best of all time, and while I revere him greatly, I get really tired of hearing conservatives aching for "the next Reagan" all the time.
Is he the next Reagan? Is he more like Reagan than that other guy? Oh, that guy's no Reagan...
Geez. Give that stuff a rest. There's only one Reagan. And that's just fine. He was a fine president and an icon of Americanism, liberty, and conservatism.
But at least give these other guys the respect of their own identities.
I imagine the actual Ronald Reagan himself would never want to see conservatism turned into little more than a cult of personality centered around him.
It's the ideas that matter. Not the people who championed them in the past. |
|
|
Republicans should fervently hope that Bloomberg runs and stays in the race to the finish. He will be the Ross Perot of 2008. Those Democrats who cannot abide by Clinton will have their candidate. |
|
I would agree it makes the general election race unpredictable--if it does happen it will encourage more candidates from both sides (would John McCain rise again?). The spoiler effect will be cancelled out and there is a very real possibility of the race ultimately being decided in the House.
Romney would definitely be in the running--but that assumes he is the nominee. Is Romney going to run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination? I think such a general election would be so weird and different that nobody would really know how it would play out. Given the way votes are totalled in the House (I believe it is done by state by state groupings rather than individual representative votes, it might be an exceedingly close vote there too). |
|
It is not certain that Bloomberg will run. If he does, is he in it to win or is he trying to block or help Rudy or Hillary? Will he do like Perot and try to throw the election for or against a candidate or party? Will he announce before the primaries and try to manipulate those?
Money is very important in this election. No one seems to know what Rudy is doing with his money. He does not seem to be buying organization. He may be hoarding it for Super T and beyond.
It remains to be seen how much money Thompson raises in the long run or how strong of an organization he puts into the first 20 states.
The idea that Thompson is a movement conservative is a joke. If you are really serious about getting Thompson elected, stop hyping him and stop treating this like he is running for high school cheerleader.
Time will tell how well Thompson does in debate, money raising and organization.
The conservative votes is going to split 5 ways. Thompson, Romney, Rudy, the lesser candidates and McCain all are going to get conservative support for various reasons. Thompson is hot right now and will probably stay hot for a month or so. I think he has a natural constituency and will end up as VP. We will see how much money he raises, how well he does in debate and how well he holds up over a long hard campaign.
The easy part is behind Thompson.
I frankly am ticked at Romney for not putting a couple of 527s in the field already. Hugh is right we desparately need 527s and especially if Bloomberg gets in.
At the moment, based on the current polls (to early to be definitive) Bloomberg throws key swing states to Hillary. If he gets in it may not be good for the GOP especially if he runs in a way to block the GOP candidate. He has money and can control his positioning and can also select which states he wants to run in. He may run just to control the election. Our democracy will be determined by one vote, Bloomberg's?
A Bloomberg candidacy is not a gift to the GOP.
I would not rush out and buy Thompson odds in Vegas based on national polls. They mean very little at the moment. Romney seems to be holding his leads in IA and NH. Whatever he is doing there to over come his negatives is working. If he can extend that to SC and/or FL and MI he will be hard to stop. |
|
...the candidate he doesn't attack.
Bloomberg has the money to destroy a candidate. That is it. He can't actually win the Presidency; we don't elect independents here. They don't have the ballot lines, the loyal voters, or the House members (to vote for them if the election goes to the House).
So the question is, whom is Bloomberg going to attack with his hundreds of millions of dollars -the Republican, or the Democrat. The other guy (or gal) will be the ultimate victor.
PS: Give us a rest with the Romney silliness. Bloomberg has no impact on Romney, one way or the other.
|
|
democrat support.
i really don't know what hugh is talking about here.
bloomberg will draw moderates and some independents but will not touch either base in my humble opinion. |
|
if CLinton gets the nod, she knows that Bloomberg won'tpull votes from a Conservative, but will from a whacko lefty since he offers an alternative for Democrats that can't stand Hillary.
If it's CLinton vs. Bloomberg vs. the Repub nominee, look for BLoomberg to die a mysterious death. Hitlery will stop at nothing. |
|
Seriously, the Romney thing is just silly. This almost reads like a parody of the usual Romney posts. Romney has shown no sign that he wants to go billion-for-billion ina campaign with any rich candidate -- I don't hold that against him, but Giuliani has many multiple millions (apparently made when he was supposed to be going to Iraq group meetings) he COULD spend on a campaign. Most candidates are rich -- but most don't want to spend their money. Hell, if Kerry had gone crazy with his wife's money, he'd still not be President.
It is strange to me that people who are against forms of campaign finance reform also essentially acknowledge that money is the foundation of the campaign -- and that the richer -- though not necessarily the better -- candidate has the best chance.
The other thing, as someone above alluded to, is that we don't know who Bloomberg would go after -- he has left the Republican party and declared the country a disaster. Seems to me that given the fact that this occured on the Republicans' watch, it isn't good for ANY candidate in their party. It also suggests he would probably be pretty aggressive against the Republicans. But if he is, it will mean that he will probably bleed away Democratic voters. |
|
To add to what you wrote, Mitt Romney's father walked out on the great '64 Goldwater speech in disgust.
Mitt Romney has said he is proud of his father for doing that.
Hmm.....
So tell us, who is the REAL conservative? |
|
A calico cat ran in front of my car today. I missed it.
I knew right away that that would help Romney. |
|
but I'm pretty sure it's Perot 2.0, except it's Dems who will be disadvantaged. Bloomers is less a Republican than the Governator anyway.
"I imagine the actual Ronald Reagan himself would never want to see conservatism turned into little more than a cult of personality centered around him.
It's the ideas that matter. Not the people who championed them in the past."
There's the paradox, Reagan was essentially those ideals incarnate. Of course we long for another 'Reagan'. I don't think it's a cult of personality thing, per se. By the way, if you haven't read Reagan in his own hand, or his newly released diaries, you're missing out. Pretty much puts to bed all the old cliche criticisms of the man. He is deservedly cementing his place among the greatest of our Presidents. |
|
Bloomberg is a lifelong Democrat who briefly switched to the GOP when he couldn't get the Dem nomination for NYC mayor. Unlike Perot and Anderson, he is not going to appeal to libertarian leaning independents at all, especially considering his big government crusades against smoking, guns, life in general, etc.
In fact, it's hard to see him appealing to anyone, period. He doesn't have the 9-11 or cleaning up NYC credibility that Rudy has. If he runs next November as an independent, he might, might, get 3% of the vote in the NYC area - assuming that Rudy and Hillary aren't running.
HH wrote: "I think a Bloomberg candidacy has to help Mitt Romney."
LOL. Others have beaten me to it, but is there any ______ that he couldn't write the sentence, "I think ______ has to help Mitt Romney" about?
Anyway, how is a Bloomberg candidacy going to help anyone at all, especially with him leaving the GOP? I suppose that if he had stayed in the GOP and run for prez, conceivably he might have siphoned off a few dozen Rudy voters in the primaries. But as an indy, he won't even be a factor till next November. Presumably then he might help the generic Republican nominee (probably Rudy or Fred, though conceivably McCain or Huckabee or Romney) slightly more than he helps the Dem, as a Bloomberg voter is likely to be a lefty - but saying that will help Romney specifically is a misleading way of putting that. |
|
I had to laugh (to keep from crying) at this portrayal of Bloomberg's politics from Politico
His political and personal views are more in line with moderate Democratic Party politics: His first major act as mayor was a large property tax increase, his most controversial was a citywide ban on smoking, and the signature accomplishment of his first term was an education reform that mixed centralized control with increased spending.
Vocally opposed to remarriage for himself, he favors the right to same-sex marriage and has confessed not only to smoking marijuana but to enjoying it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4560.html
Note please the disingenuous use of the word "moderate" to describe policies somewhat to the left of Hugo Chavez's. I suppose they thought that "balancing" centralized control and increased spending was some sort of left-right compromise!
Oh yeah, this guy is going to appeal to lots of conservatives and libertarians. |
|
These were lucid insights on the topic that I found especially interesting and enjoyable to read.
-Kilroy
"... Bloomberg’s (U-NY) apparent decision to flush $500,000,000 of his own money down the toilet."
"... formally changing his party affiliation from the Republican Party to the Unelectable Party..."
"... the Unelectable Party has occasionally played the role of spoiler in presidential elections."
Pasadena Phil
"... my read is that the only reason Bloomberg is threatening to run is to spoil it for Giuliani. Apparently, the ill will runs deep between these two sanctuary city mayors."
LibertarianHawk
"It's a campaign that will appeal to disenchanted liberal, anti-war voters...and it may even put New York into play for the Republicans."
GREG
"Those Democrats who cannot abide by Clinton will have their candidate."
dingo
"bloomberg helps...the candidate he doesn't attack.
"Bloomberg has the money to destroy a candidate. That is it. He can't actually win the Presidency; we don't elect independents here."
manfred
"he has left the Republican party and declared the country a disaster.
"... he would probably be pretty aggressive against the Republicans." |
|
Advantage to Romney, only if he's the nominee. Bloomberg's money or Clinton's 527s have zero impact on the GOP nomination.
And Romney's nomination....is clearly a BIG "if". |
|
sun comes up in the east. Why that favors Rommney!
Let's face it the conservatives will not base their convictions on who has the most donors in their pocket.
The immigration/spending/earmarks fiascos have cured us of "trusting" flippers. |
|
While I can't stand him, he is not the psycho that Perot was, and he has a lot more money than Perot did too. Perot's appeal was very strong until he started wigging out in the public eye. Bloomberg has been in the public eye for a long time.
If, and I say if, the choices are Hillary from the Dems and Rudy from the GOP, then does anyone think that Bloomberg couldn't possibly win? Let's say the presence of 3 NYers on the ticket turns off 10% of the electorate enough to not vote, my guess is that 10% comes from Mid-west battleground states. That will hurt the GOP. He has broad appeal to coastal liberal elites, because, well, he is one. That hurts Hillary. His position wrt to Iraq has been pretty consistent all along and that will appeal to moderates who neither favor a cut and run strategy nor the status quo.
We may not like him, but we dismiss him at our peril. |
|
... w/ jmc, except for the not being able to stand Bloomberg part. He is Perot plus more wealth, minus the kooky... Say what you will about the guy, but he did make a fortune for himself, starting from much less than Romney, and ending up w/ much more. he also has inspired respect across the political board from people in NYC. The same could NOT be said for Rudy when he was there.
Bloomberg is actually alot like Romney: the self-made fortune; the brazen political opportunism; the switching positions/parties to advance oneself; the eloquence and campaign savvy; the membership in a non-mainstream faith. The main difference between them is stylistic: Romney tries to hide his warts with slight of hand, whereas Bloomberg is forthright. Bloomberg does apologize or equivocate when answering questions about party affliation or past drug use. On the other hand, Romney is much better looking...
Yes, the Hugh/Romney man-crush is both tragically severe and hiliariously hyperbolic, so Hugh has ZERO credibility on matters even tangentially related to Romney. Unlike Dean, Hugh won't even admit as much....
I actually think if Bloomberg helps any given Republican in the primary, it would be Thompson. If it comes down to a three way race vs Hillary and Bloomberg, the rest of the country would probably prefer a folksy Southern actor to another ex-NYC mayor (Rudy) or Bloomberg-lite (Romney). But the reality is Bloomberg's playbook seems to indicate he will wait until AFTER the party primaries to "jump in," so any effect on the parties' nominee selection will be minimal. Although in the general, Bloomberg could well hurt Hillary more than Fred/Rudy/Mitt.
|
|
|
Bloomberg is likely to draw from the Democrats more than the Republicans. As such, I think it helps the conservatives first, and the Republicans second. Does it help Romney? I think it does, but it would be a mistake to leave out that it also helps Thompson and Giuliani. I think it is a net positive for Republicans and Conservatives in particular. It is a great way to split the liberal vote. |
|
There have been three third party candidates since Truman beat the Strom Thurman Dixiecrats and the "Man on the Wedding Cake".
It took Rep Anderson bleeding the Republican, Watergate and the Nixon pardon to narrowly defeat Gerald Ford.
It took Ross Perot to consciously set out to get GHW Bush, to get the Clintons elected.
Fair or not Al Gore barely lost to Bush 43 while Ralph Nader took some strength from the Democrat.
The race wasn't close until the last week when massive dirty trickery intimating three GWB DUI convictions had been covered up in Maine, brought it back from a 7% landslide to a narrow victory.
When you re-write the history as the MSM did then, means never having to say you are sorry.
The Dirty trickery was subsequently ignored by the MSM, in their rush to support the ambulance chasing tactics employed by Gore's tort lawyers.
Their usual histrionics did serve to poison the political dialogues, and convince many Democrats the election was illegitimate. |
|
Grasping for benefits of a Bloomberg campaign to Romney is like:
Running out of gas in a desert before a rainbow carries you to a paradise where all monkeys wear wetsuits made of pumkin seeds, and before you can grasp the situation you see your grandmother waving to you from inside a forest made of John Wayne lifesize posters...
Mmm yeah, it's like that.
This from a Romney supporter. |
|
Good post, exDemo, but we can’t blame Anderson for James Earl. It was Watergate that allowed JC to eke out a close win over Ford (incidentally, the last time a Democrat received half the popular vote or more).
Anderson was 1980 and probably cost Reagan a few million votes, but Reagan still coasted to an easy win over the disastrous Carter.
It’s true that Perot hurt Bush more than Clinton, but I think you also have to see his absurdly strong showing (19% of the general vote!) as a symptom of Bush failure, not primarily as a cause. It was Bush throwing away the highest presidential rating in history (as of early 1991) by raising taxes (claiming lamely that his “no new taxes” mantra had meant only not instituting brand new forms of taxation, as opposed to the way we all sensibly understood it) to make Perot into a candidate at all.
As for 2000, though it’s become an article of faith on the left that Bush only won because of Nader, all of the specific election analyses I’ve read cast doubt on that idea. Not all Nader voters would have been Gore voters in Ralph’s absence – fully a fifth of them would actually have voted for Bush instead, and something like half of the remainder would simply not have voted for either man (after all, their dissatisfaction with Bush and Gore is part of why they were Nader voters). And you can’t ignore the Buchanan factor, which hurt Bush (though not to the extent Nader hurt Gore). But if you back out both of them, the result remains the same as backing out neither of them.
The Bush drinking “October surprise” did indeed turn an easy win into a nail-biter, but you have to give partial blame to Bush for that. If he’d just come clean in 1999, it all would have blown over. Of course, that might have jeopardized his primary chances vs. McCain, but the GOP and nation would have been far better served by a strong McCain win than by giving the idiots on the left a perpetual whining point. As HH says, If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat; a long-forgiven Bush or an unblemished McCain would have whipped the stiff Gore easily. |
|
|
|