Paul vs. Bloomberg

As someone who regularly scoffs at Michael Bloomberg's third-party ambitions, and regularly suggests that Ron Paul ought to consider an independent bid (a suggestion that seems to have fallen on deaf ears), I don't know I missed this poll (via John Derbyshire) from a couple weeks ago, which showed Paul outpolling Bloomberg in the event they both mounted third-party candidacies. (In the increasingly likely event of a McCain-Obama race, the poll has Paul getting 11 percent of the vote, and Bloomberg only five.) Now obviously neither man is going to run, and just as obviously Bloomberg would have vastly more money to spend than Paul in the event that they both did, which would presumably boost his numbers at least slightly higher than this. But the poll is still a telling indicator of where third-party energy tends to come from - i.e., not from Bloomberg-style center-leftism.

(Apologies, incidentally, for the continued light posting: I have a mystery illness that's keeping me back on my heels.)

Comments

I mean no disrespect to Michael Bloomberg, but I've never figured out just who was supposed to get excited about his candidacy.

Does he have a hot button issue to rally people to his side?

No.

Does he command a strong regional base?

No.

Does he have a magnetic personality, great charisma or awesome speaking skills?

Again, no.

Bloomberg is an intelligent man with solid administrative skills and experience. He also has plenty of money to spend. But Mitt Romney had all those things too, and that didn't get him very far. What makes Bloomberg think his appeal would be any stronger than Romney's?

Posted by astorian | February 25, 2008 12:06 PM

If Bloomberg actually spent $1 billion on the campaign, I think he could boost his numbers more than "slightly".

Look, Ross is basically correct that there's no real ideological opening for Bloomberg. But the question for Bloomberg is "Could a third party candidate buy their way into contention by outspending the major party candidates and saturating the airwaves with TV ads (even if there's no real compelling case to be made for their candidacy)?" Maybe. Maybe not. But to offer up a poll taken now, before Bloomberg has run a single ad, as evidence on this one way or the other is absurd.

Having said that, while I do think Bloomberg might have had a chance against a generic Democrat and a generic Republican (maybe something like Clinton-Romney would have worked), Obama-McCain just makes it too tough for him, no matter how much $ he spends. But that doesn't mean that the idea was doomed from the start.

Posted by Chris S. | February 25, 2008 1:54 PM

One other thing. How many voters outside NYC even know who Bloomberg is? Political junkies certainly know him, but do many average voters know who he is? Or even if they've heard the name and can identify him as mayor of NYC, do they know the first thing about him beyond the office he holds?

Clearly, in a hypothetical general election matchup, Bloomberg would spend enough $ that everyone would have heard about him by November. So there's yet another reason why polling Bloomberg right now, in February, tells you absolutely nothing about how well he might do if he were to run.

Posted by Chris S. | February 25, 2008 1:59 PM

I'd be interested to see how much support there would be for a conservative 3rd party candidate who was took a strong position against illegal immigration and for family values.

Posted by Mike | February 25, 2008 3:34 PM

Bloomberg could succeed in the event of a major party candidate faltering.

McCain is old and has a lot of baggage. Obama is green and a minority.

If someone got to 65% in polls due to his opponents meltdown, MB could enter quickly as the alternative.

Posted by Kim | February 25, 2008 3:53 PM

"I'd be interested to see how much support there would be for a conservative 3rd party candidate who was took a strong position against illegal immigration and for family values."

I would too. I would really like to see someone like that run. I really would.

Posted by Little Boots | February 25, 2008 8:56 PM

Of course, with Nader back in, we actually have a third party candidate in the race now. Can't see him being anywhere nearly as decisive as he was in 200 though.

Posted by Justin K. | February 25, 2008 9:13 PM

Of course, with Nader back in, we actually have a third party candidate in the race now. Can't see him being anywhere nearly as decisive as he was in 2000 though.

Posted by Justin K. | February 25, 2008 9:13 PM

A billion dollars can perhaps give you a respectable showing, but not necessarily a win. Even before he did that weird drop-out/come-back Perot was probably not going to win the 1992 election.

Even if it was possible Perot, despite his many many faults, had some qualities Bloomberg lacks. Perot could be funny and show a common touch. Bloomberg comes off more like a Steve Forbes. No chance of him winning really.

Posted by Thomas R | February 26, 2008 1:02 AM

We've had that mystery illness running around here at work for a month. People just drop out of sight for a week or two. Starts as the flu, then seems to progress into secondary infections of some sort.

Posted by wiredog | February 26, 2008 9:45 AM

"A billion dollars can perhaps give you a respectable showing, but not necessarily a win. Even before he did that weird drop-out/come-back Perot was probably not going to win the 1992 election."

Perot spent less than $100 million in 1992, less than either Bush or Clinton spent. The buzz is that, if Bloomberg were to run, he would actually spend $1 billion, far outpacing both of his opponents. There's just no way to anticipate how that would play out, as there's no precedent for it. Which is why it's absurd to use polls taken today to predict what the outcome would be.

Posted by Chris S. | February 26, 2008 11:46 AM