Why Michael Bloomberg could compete in the 2012 Presidential race – as a Republican.
Michele Walk, Staff Writer
Ideology: Moderate | Writing From: Boxford, MA
We’re hardly a year past the last presidential election and already there is speculation about who will run for President in 2012 against Barack Obama. While I consider myself to be a moderate, I do not support Obama and therefore will most likely be swinging GOP in 2012. And I already know who I’d like to see the Repub
licans courting: current New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Even though he has a storied past with the Republican Party, former businessman and moderate Michael Bloomberg would make a great candidate for the wounded GOP in 2012. He is a fiscal conservative and moderate on social issues – a combination that I predict will be a winning one in the next race for the White House. Bloomberg’s fiscal conservatism is perhaps his most important quality, for according to recent Rasmussen polls, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on economic issues. If the economy fails to recover to its pre-recession state by 2012, fiscal conservatism will strongly resonate with voters and I predict economic concerns will grossly outweigh social issues in the mind of the American public. The country is already leaning towards Republicans for the miderm elections; however, the key to regaining seats, and the White House, isn’t for the Party to support diehard conservatives, but rather to nominate moderates that emphasize the GOP’s basic philosophies of limited government and fiscal restraint over more divisive social issues. Bloomberg is a moderate who has excellent credentials as a fiscal conservative, and if his campaign were to emphasize his superior fiscal record, he would have a formidable chance at the Presidency.
Still, the biggest problem Michael Bloomberg might have with Republicans is with regards to his stances on social issues. Bloomberg is pro-choice and recent polls indicate that the country is leaning pro-life (not to mention the fact that the Republican Party is still staunchly pro-life). However, while his socially moderate/liberal stances may alienate some conservatives, I will wager that one would be hard-pressed to find a conservative in 2012 that will be unwilling to vote for a fiscal conservative when their other option is the quasi-socialist, big-government, very liberal Obama. Of course, the counter argument to the previous statement is the 2008 election itself. John McCain – perhaps the poster boy for moderate Republicans – lost against Obama. However, voters in general are becoming more and more skeptical of Obama’s brand of intrusive governance and the Democratic Party in general. McCain only lost by about six percentage points, which in actuality isn’t a terrible showing considering he was running against the Democratic Messiah. If McCain/Palin had run against the 2004 Democratic ticket, Kerry/Edwards, there is no doubt in my mind that McCain would have won; in my view, McCain’s loss in 2008 had less to do with him as a candidate and more the climate of the election. Obamafever is already losing its virulence, and a moderate like Bloomberg could beat him in 2012.
Michael Bloomberg, however, isn’t just a fiscal conservative; he’s a fiscal conservative with a conscience. Though I find it to be untrue, Republicans are often attacked for not having the poor’s interests at heart. Bloomberg managed to balance the budget of New York City while simultaneously improving public education and supporting anti-poverty programs – policies that will resonate with and potentially swing liberal voters. Additionally, the fact that he was a Democrat until 2001 could actually help him win over people that came out for Obama in 2008. While his sometimes-schizophrenic party switching would give the media a field day, it is crucial to note is that despite the fact that he has switched his affiliation, his policies have remained constant. And though it would potentially make conservative Republicans nervous, it could also make him seem less “threatening” to Democrats and help him win their support.
However, considering Michael Bloomberg is running for his third term as mayor this year, it is unlikely that he will run in 2012, which brings us back to the two biggest current potential candidates: Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. Regarding Palin, she should run for and serve at least one term in the Senate before considering a Presidential run. Besides, while I absolutely adore the former Vice Presidential candidate and consider her an inspiration, I think that she will still be too conservative to win the White House in 2012. As for Romney, he did a great job as Governor as Massachusetts and is beloved by many in the Republican Party, especially young voters. However, his record of flip-flopping will come to haunt him and it could potentially alienate conservatives and liberals alike.
The key to Republicans winning the next Presidential election is to first and foremost reach out to moderates, not the far side of the party. Though Obama’s numbers may be shifting south, Democrats still have a 7-point advantage over Republicans with regards to party affiliation, making independents and moderates absolutely crucial to electoral success. If the Republicans can nominate two fiscally conservative, socially moderate politicians for President and Vice President – and not directly pander to the “base” that will probably vote Republican anyway in the face of another Obama term – they will have an excellent shot at winning the White House in 2012.
This man’s chances of getting the nomination are no better than Ron Paul’s. The political junkie in me would love to see how a rich Jewish Republican would perform at the national level but I can’t see it happening.
Yes, it’s unlikely, but it would do the GOP a lot of good. Still, the general message still stands – in order to beat Obama in 2012, the Republicans need to nominate two moderates.
Nominating two Democrats would help us win, too. I’d rather to stick to our principles.
Yes, by all means let’s proffer up the man who decided it would be okay to override the express will of the people by political manipulations and machinations so that he can have yet another term as mayor in a vain grasp at continued relevance.
To be quite frank, I only hope that Alec gets his way in the primary — let the GOP continue its downward spiral into irrelevance.
Maybe once your preferred fundywingnut is on the ballot, the polls will go down again, then.
I didn’t have a “fit”, Alec — I pointed out that it was intellectually dishonest to point to that as proof that America is fundamentally conservative. I find this poll significantly more disturbing, but, I suppose, not terribly surprising. Nonetheless, asking people whether they agree with “the Democrats” or “the Republicans” on an issue is terribly vague, especially in a nation in which politicians have far more freedom to stray from party lines without much in the way of penalty (apparently, including endorsing the candidate of the other party) than in most other nations in the world. Furthermore, the idea that most voters know what “the Democrats” or “the Republicans” stand for on most of these issues is, sadly, laughable. As a result, the notion of a “Democratic” or “Republican” position is a bit wishy-washy at the least and downright unscientific at worst.
Why are my comments being deleted?
My comment said something along the lines of:
Since the American people are just a bunch of idiots and too stupid to understand the platforms of both parties (according to you), wouldn’t that make both parties irrelevant?
What makes the GOP irrelevant and the Dems relevant?
Alec — we had about 200-300 spam comments which I was trying to delete. My apologies if I accidentally deleted one of your comments.
Furthermore, I didn’t say that the American people are “a bunch of idiots” or “too stupid to understand the platforms of both parties” — I only said that they /didn’t/ understand them. This is a crucial difference.
In the field of political science, it is a commonly-accepted fact that it’s in the rational interest of the voters to not really bother to research every candidate and instead to simply look at opinion leaders (for example, if I were not really interested in politics, I’d simply figure out how, say, my favorite politician or commentator — or even some of my friends — felt about a given issue or election and vote that way). Empirical studies have repeatedly demonstrated that this is how many voters make their decisions (check out research on shortcuts and whatnot).
You didn’t answer my question.
Alec Jacobs Says:
July 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm e
Nominating two Democrats would help us win, too. I’d rather to stick to our principles.
Alec,
What principles do you feel Bloomberg violates? Obviously he is pro-choice and out of step with the base on that issue, but other than that…where does he go wrong?
@Alec: the answer to your question, then, would be “no”. I felt it was fairly self-evident from my previous response.
@Conor: obviously, he’s too progressive on gay rights.
Noah, no, pro-choice was what I was thinking of.
And your “answer” was incoherent, so I’ll repeat my question: What makes the GOP irrelevant and the Dems relevant?
I didn’t say the GOP was irrelevant now — I said they’re on a downward spiral in that direction, however. Of course, maybe I’m wrong.
Guys, both parties are irrelevant.
The GOP is just really good at showing its irrelevance.
Irrelevant? Hardly.
Nothing can get done without at least the partial support of either party, making them quite relevant — perhaps it is this fact that you don’t like (and one with which I agree)
The problem is that they are TOO relevant to everything.
You like to make stuff up. Do you even know Bloomberg’s history or stances on the issues? In what ways is he fiscally conservative? He’s just like any other democrat – and he’s only an independent / former republican because he wanted a way on the ballot. Republicans would never nominate him because he doesn’t share GOP views and he wouldn’t run as a republican, because he’s not one.