Is Donald Trump fading? What about Jeb Bush? Can Hillary Clinton fight through more damaging revelations? And what’s up with Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden and Ben Carson and Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz and everyone else in the 2016 crowd? Amid the extraordinary amount of campaign news these days, it was striking Wednesday that Mike Allen, Politico’s well-connected chief political reporter, devoted not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but six paragraphs of his newsletter to the virtually nonexistent presidential prospects of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
In an item headlined “The Conversation,” Allen wrote that the billionaire businessman “has gotten a new surge of pleas to run for president over the past month, making him the most-buzzed-about current non-candidate whose name isn’t Joe Biden.” Allen reported that Bloomberg is “politely waving off” entreaties that he run, but that he could change his mind.
According to Allen, there are several reasons the people who are buzzing about Bloomberg want to see him in the race. The Democrats among them are Clinton supporters worried about Clinton. The Republicans are Jeb supporters worried about Jeb. Everyone is appalled by Trump. The decline of Bush and Clinton, these unnamed supporters believe, “reflects an unpopularity with traditional politicians and makes Bloomberg more attractive.”
Really? Despite trial balloons in 2008 and 2012 and, perhaps, today, no one has ever pointed to a groundswell of support for a Bloomberg presidential candidacy. And certainly not an independent Bloomberg presidential candidacy.
“Michael Bloomberg is a solution in search of a problem,” says Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, who is not affiliated with any presidential campaign this year. “There is no demand in the electorate for a third party candidate.”
Of Bloomberg, who has been a Democrat and a Republican and an independent, Castellanos adds, “Usually third party candidacies end up combining the worst, not the best, of both parties. Republicans hate the Democrat in them, and Democrats hate the Republican in them. In that sense, alone do third party candidacies unite America.”
David Carney, another GOP veteran not working on a presidential campaign this year, expressed delight at the possibility of running against the man sometimes referred to as a “nanny” for his proposals to ban all sorts of things from New York life, from sodas larger than 16 ounces to loud headphones to salt to trans fats to displaying, much less smoking, cigarettes in public places.
“Next to Hillary, Bloomberg would be the next most fun liberal to crush,” Carney says. “The difference is while Hillary talks a good game about implementing the Nanny State, it’s just that — talk. She has never done anything successfully on this front, while Bloomberg is the embodiment of the grand Nanny State in words, deed, and action. He walks the walk.”
The evidence of a 2016 Bloomberg boom, or even boomlet, is pretty thin. Newsmax recently published a piece headlined “Talk Grows of a Michael Bloomberg Independent Run for 2016,” but the story was based mostly on a single tweet by a man named Ian Bremmer, a columnist at Time. The tweet, on Sept. 26, said: “Word from those that know: Mike Bloomberg now seriously considering Independent run.”
Beyond that, all Newsmax had to offer was a few tweets in August from media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who wrote, “With Trump becoming very serious candidate, it’s time for next billionaire candidate, Mike Bloomberg to step into ring. Greatest mayor.” Later, Murdoch briefly acknowledged Bloomberg’s nanny issues and added, “I did not say I would vote for him! Just a friend I admire.”
In June, the New York Post’s Michael Goodwin reported that some New York Democrats were appealing to Bloomberg to jump in the race. “Their argument is that Clinton’s vulnerability with general-election voters, especially independents, could result in a Republican president,” Goodwin wrote. “They also believed Bloomberg could be interested because, as one of them told me, ‘Mike can’t stand Hillary.'”
That’s about it. As in the past, the talk — and there’s nothing more than talk — suggests little interest in Bloomberg beyond the confines of New York City. But now there is even more talk. And Democratic strategist — New York Democratic strategist — Hank Sheinkopf says there is legitimate reason for it. “It’s the great hope that many people have that a centrist of accomplishment could run up the middle and deal with what appears to be chaos,” says Sheinkopf, who worked with Bloomberg in the 2009 mayoral race. “Because of his business success, he would be seen as someone who can fix the nation’s economic problems, fix our problems with China, has the trust of the business community, has run the nation’s biggest city, has been an advocate for gun control, for health, and an environmentalist.”
And, in a line that many Trump supporters use about the only billionaire currently in the race, Sheinkopf added: “He cannot be corrupted by money.”
Despite the talk of an independent run, Allen notes that Bloomberg has “never been convinced it’s doable.” That’s an understatement. In an interview with New York magazine two years ago, Bloomberg was asked “Can you really rule out running for president in 2016?” His answer: “Yes. It’s just impossible. I am 100 percent convinced that you cannot in this country win an election unless you are the nominee of one of the two major parties. The second thing I am convinced of is that I could not get through the primary process with either party.”
Nevertheless, the talk goes on. Allen notes that Bloomberg “could change his mind if somehow both parties wound up with a nominee he considered unelectable.” It’s an unusual line of reasoning, because if the race comes down to a Republican and a Democrat, one of them will be elected, whether Bloomberg deems them unelectable or not. So it’s perhaps more accurate to say Bloomberg would consider getting in if both parties wind up with candidates he really doesn’t like. But it’s vastly more likely that Bloomberg will eventually return to what he said about an independent run not too long ago: It’s just impossible.
