March 1, 2016

"The odds of Michael Bloomberg running for president are 'very, very low -- almost zero,' a source close to Bloomberg told ABC News."

"His decision, the source said, will likely come this week or next."
Another Bloomberg confidant would not confirm nor deny that characterization but told ABC News, "We are at crunch time."...

As ABC News reported in January, the former mayor of New York City has been exploring the possibility of running as an independent. His political team has done research on his viability and the requirements to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states.
Does that suggest that they found it was too hard to get on all the ballots? Back in January, he said the odds were 50-50 that he'd run if Trump got the GOP nomination. Maybe he was just trying to push opinion back then, and now that Trump's nomination is at hand, Bloomberg's bluff is called. 

24 comments:

David said...

"Does that suggest that they found it was too hard to get on all the ballots? "

Too late, too expensive, too indecisive and not a chance he could win anything.

This has been a news story and nothing more.

Limited blogger said...

No one cared when he floated the idea originally, and now no one cares that he is ending his exploration. That wasted about 5 minutes of my bandwidth.

Charlie Currie said...

Bloomberg is a wuss and lacks the courage of his convictions. Besides, he knows Trump would crush him.

traditionalguy said...

Wow! Bloomberg would mean three New York Liberals running.

Texas would go ahead and secede.

Paddy O said...

tradguy, don't forget that Bernie Sanders was born in New York, so it would mean four New York liberals are running...

Terry said...


"The odds of Michael Bloomberg running for president are 'very, very low -- almost zero,' a source close to Bloomberg told ABC News."
David Frum will be disappointed. No one else will be disappointed.

Bob said...

Bloomberg wouldn't have much of a constituency - - gun haters and food Nazis. Blacks would hate him for stop 'n frisk.

rehajm said...

He should have just threatened to move to Canada like all the others.

holdfast said...

Any Republican who cares even a tiny little bit about the Second Amendment could not vote for Bloomy. Sanders would be a better vote. So the only Republicans who would cross to Bloomy are those in dense, coastal areas like NY and Cali - states that the GOP can't win anyway.

Curtiss said...

I'd like see the Bloomberg rally in Mobile, Alabama. Too bad. I guess it won't happen now.

Bay Area Guy said...

That's actually bad news, Bloomberg is so much a nanny-state progressive, he would have taken more votes from Hillary than Trump.

David said...

"Trump's nomination is at hand, Bloomberg's bluff is called."

Trump is not his fave fellow member of the Billionaires Club. He would hate to lose to Trump.

Should there be an apostrophe in Billionaires Club? (Billionaire's Club. Billionaires Club. Billionaires' Club. All three have a slightly different meaning. Attention prospective immigrants! English is hard. At least this fussy kind of English.)

Skeptical Voter said...

What is it with these BSing billionaires from New York. It's almost like you can't trust them to do what they say. You might also add a few "Bs" to that--like blustering, babbling buffoons.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

" he said the odds were 50-50 that he'd run if Trump got the GOP nomination. "
AND Democrats nominated Sanders. He is buddies with Hillary and never planned to run against her.

khesanh0802 said...

Bloomberg is too smart to enter this race and throw allis time and money away. My Republican establishment friend hoped he would so the election would get thrown to the House. Why would Bloomberg walk into that?

grackle said...

I'd like see the Bloomberg rally in Mobile, Alabama. Too bad. I guess it won't happen now.

Witty!

Crazy Jane said...

I like Bloomberg. I don't care about the big sodas and there is nothing he can do about guns, but give the guy props for honestly trying to improve NYC's abysmal public schools. He is a pragmatist who favors neither party. His wealth and experience beat any other candidate's and, if elected, he would operate as a pragmatist. Faced with a choice between Hillary/Bernie or Trump/Cruz, I'd write in Bloomberg in a heartbeat and encourage others to do the same.

tim in vermont said...

On account of he is confident of a Hillary win.

Brando said...

I thought the only reason he was considering running was if Sanders and Trump were the nominees. Now that Clinton is looking inevitable (for real this time) he sees no need to run.

jaydub said...

Damn! Who am I going to vote for now?

Sammy Finkelman said...

Well, the most probable initial point that Michael Bloomberg would start from is that he would run was that if, after March 1, it looked likely that either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz was going to be the Republican nominee, and Bernard Sanders the Democratic nominee. That's the story I read.

It was also added (this is sometimes missed) that if it looked like Hillary Clinton might be utterly disgraced (and still persisted in running) or couldn't win for some reason, then that would also cause him to jump in.

Michael Bloomberg, unlike maybe some of the people pushing him to run, is reasonably content with, or at least not bothered by, the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming president.

It's not getting on the ballot that's a problem for Bloomberg - that is, if Bloomberg makes a decision before the middle of next week.

-----------

Well, Donald Trump really looks close (although not unstoppable) for the Republicans, but Bernie Sanders looks like he doesn't have enough support in enough places to have any good chance of winning the Democratic nomination, let alone being the odds on favorite.

It looks likely that Michael Bloomberg will wait a few days, or a week, but unless somebody close to him will come up with some new arguments, or Bernard Sanders shows surprising strength in Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Maine, Michigan and Mississippi -and it really has to be just abut all these places - or if Hillary Clinton is indicted, or something new that can ruin her prospects for thr presidency turns up, he will probably announce he is not running for president.

Maybe he will keep his options open a bit longer.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Brando said...3/2/16, 6:17 AM

I thought the only reason he was considering running was if Sanders and Trump were the nominees.

That was it, except that Ted Cruz would also cause him to jump in, and he could also run if Hillary was the nominee if she was both disgraced and unstoppable.

Now that Clinton is looking inevitable (for real this time) he sees no need to run.

From his perspective. unless someone can convince him that Hillary also is terrible, and that he won't throw the election to Trump. Right now he is showing up at something like 16% in 3-way polls. Now a lot of things can change in the course of an election campaign. His strategy would have to be displacing the Republican in some sattes like California, and the Democrat in some states like Kentucky, and hoping that Trump and Clinton split the electoral votes sufficiently so that his carrying 5 to 8 scattered states gets the election thrown into the House of Reprsenatives.

Michael Bloomberg is probably about the most credible self-financing third party candidate you could think of.

Brando said...

"From his perspective. unless someone can convince him that Hillary also is terrible, and that he won't throw the election to Trump. Right now he is showing up at something like 16% in 3-way polls. Now a lot of things can change in the course of an election campaign. His strategy would have to be displacing the Republican in some sattes like California, and the Democrat in some states like Kentucky, and hoping that Trump and Clinton split the electoral votes sufficiently so that his carrying 5 to 8 scattered states gets the election thrown into the House of Reprsenatives.

Michael Bloomberg is probably about the most credible self-financing third party candidate you could think of."

Yeah, I think for him one consideration is he absolutely does not want Trump as president, but also knows that his appeal is mostly going to come from the moderate left. A bigger threat to Trump would be a far-right candidate going third party--if Ted Cruz decided to do it I think Trump would be curtains. It's hard to imagine Cruz taking any voters from Clinton, and if the race is as close as I suspect even a 5% vote for Cruz is most states would mean losing the must-win purple states.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Beldar @ 3/2/16, 3:07 PM

"Yeah, I think for him [Michael Bloomberg] one consideration is he absolutely does not want Trump as president, but also knows that his appeal is mostly going to come from the moderate left."

The thing is, it's been reported that he also would run if it looked like Bernie sanders would get the nomination (which it doesn't look like now) because Bernie Sanders is, or was, too much against the banks, meaning I think the bank bailouts, meaning (if my extrapolation about Michael Bloomberg's is right) that he would have allowed, or could allow the country to sink into another Great Depression if some situation like that happens again, the way Bloomberg sees it.

A cautious strategy could be to run only in states Donald Trump has no chance of carrying, thereby not giving him any Electoral votes. This would mean something if the Democratt would otherwise win (so that Trump doesn't have a majority of the Electoral votes in any case.)

A bigger threat to Trump would be a far-right candidate going third party--if Ted Cruz decided to do it I think Trump would be curtains. It's hard to imagine Cruz taking any voters from Clinton, and if the race is as close as I suspect even a 5% vote for Cruz is most states would mean losing the must-win purple states.

But would some such Republican want to do that? If he couldn't get any Electoral votes, the election could not be thrown into the House of Representatives, and he could not be picked by a closely divided House (because states can be divided, someone would need about 57% of the House, with the caveat that a few crucial members from small states or evenly divided states would be capable of swinging the result.)

To get into the House, you would need a candidate who could displace Trump - and win also - in purple or blue states.

Another way to get in is to displace Hillary or Bernie in red states, but a far right candidate wouldn't be too successful in getting Democrats to vote for him, as he wouldn't be seen as much better than Trump, and Trump could even be seen as better to some people.

A major party candidate can get displaced when that major party candidate is polling third (in that state, if somebody informs the voters) consistently, and probably below 20% or so. It;s happened in some elections for Senator or Governor, and also for Bernie sanders himself when he ran for the House. He had to lose in 1988, though, before he won into 1990. Sometimes it takes an actual election to do that.

In 2006, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut won re-election in Connecticut by displacing the Republican candidate, whom everyone knew had no chance.