Apparently one New York City multi-billionaire isn’t enough for the 2016 presidential election cycle. By now you’ve heard the rumors about a certain former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, joining in this race as an Independent. For those of you keeping score, Bloomberg was once a Republican.
As reported by Fox News, “Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering a 2016 independent presidential campaign, vowing to spend a $1 billion of his own cash, according to The New York Times.
The billionaire politician purportedly sees an opportunity for a third-party victory, based on what he considers a beatable 2016 field. He has already commissioned a poll and told advisers to start drafting plans.
Bloomberg appears to be waiting on the outcome of the Feb. 1 Iowa caucus and the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary, saying he’ll commission a second poll after New Hampshire and make a decision in early March.
There was speculation in 2008 and 2012 that Bloomberg was considered a White House bid. He was a Democrat, then a Republican before becoming an Independent [same playbook as Charlie Crist in Florida].
Bloomberg purportedly is motivated by fellow New York billionaire Donald Trump dominating national polls in the GOP primary and the problems facing the campaign of front-running Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.”
I don’t think there is a comparative basis for Bloomberg to make the case that he should be encouraged by the “front-runner” status of Donald Trump. The American electorate isn’t pleased with the current political class, but Michael Bloomberg isn’t the answer.
First of all, I don’t see former Mayor Bloomberg being a billionaire that can connect with everyday Americans. And frankly, there’s not enough oxygen in the room for two very large.. well, egos. I will admit, we’ve never seen anything like this election cycle. And just in case you wanted to ask me, yes, Trump’s following is loyal beyond loyal, and I’ve yet to see anything he’s said or done that dissuades them from giving their patronage.
But there are some very pressing issues with Bloomberg that will make it very difficult for to be embraced by the American electorate.
The Times said Bloomberg’s plan to spend $1 billion based on interviews with sources briefed on his plans but who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
However, his strong support for tighter gun laws and his ties to Wall Street could present problems for conservative and liberal voters disaffected with the existing presidential field.
My assessment is that Mayor Bloomberg is more a threat to take votes away from the Democrat field than the GOP candidates. Bloomberg’s support to undermine candidates across the country who do not embrace his anti-Second Amendment vision certainly doesn’t endear him to patriotic Americans.
And as he closed out his tenure in New York City as the mayor, Bloomberg became a big government nanny state advocate with his proposals to curtail large sugary drink sales and consumption — not a winning endeavor.
So I think I can say without hesitation, he won’t pick up any support down South, Midwest, and maybe not in western states. Bloomberg could be a regional candidate, limited to the Northeast and his brand of independent leans more left.
But does he truly have a chance with a liberal progressive left that has totally embraced the wealth redistribution message of the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders? Can Michael Bloomberg go farther left that Sanders — which is what Hillary Clinton has sought to do, which is so disingenuous to be completely laughable — then again, she and former President Bill Clinton were flat broke when thy left the White House.
We’ve already seen Hillary Clinton acolytes play the race card on Bernie Sanders; you can bet that they would on Bloomberg. Then again, can Bloomberg appeal to the black electorate enough, especially south of the Mason-Dixon Line?
Michael Bloomberg believes there may be a gap for him to exploit in this presidential election cycle. What will the Iowa and New Hampshire events tell him? Who knows? But certainly Bloomberg may be banking on the rise of Sanders and Trump, seeing them as the most vulnerable, and opening up a spot for him to enter this race.
Nothing about this cycle makes sense, but one thing is for certain: we do NOT need another nanny-state advocate who doesn’t believe in our Second Amendment right — got that already.