'Just What Dems Need: A Ralph Nader, With Money'

'Just What Dems Need: A Ralph Nader, With Money'

By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
January 10, 2008 - 17:27 ET

Would a Mike Bloomberg presidential candidacy be the Dems' worst nightmare? Yes, according to Bill Schneider. The CNN Senior Political Analyst described the NYC Mayor in terms that should make Hillary Clinton's blood run cold: "a Ralph Nader, with money."

Schneider offered his analysis at 4:40 PM ET today on the Situation Room.

View video here.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

BILL SCHNEIDER: Bloomber, like Perot, is rich enough to finance his own campaign. Perot got nearly 20% of the vote in 1992, but he didn't carry a single state. Do Bloomberg's prospects look any better? It depends on who the Democratic and Republican candidates are. Will the parties nominate candidates who have broad enough appeal to unite the country, or, will they nominate divisive candidates with highly partisan support? Partisan and divisive nominees would leave a lot of room in the center for a Bloomberg candidacy. He has to wait and see who the nominees are.

Cut to a clip of former Dem prez contender Gary Hart.

GARY HART: We could well know by February 5th who the two nominees are. That's the time then to ask your question.

SCHNEIDER: But will that leave enough time? Sure. Perot didn't indicate his interest in running until February 20th, 1992, on Larry King Live.

Mayor Bloomberg is from the most Democratic part of the country: the Northeast. And his views are much closer to the Democratic party than to the Republican party. So there's a good chance Bloomberg would split the Democratic vote and help elect a Republican. Just what the Democrats need: a Ralph Nader, with money.

So . . . will we see MSM stories intended to dissuade Bloomberg from muddying Dem waters? In the meantime, Bloomberg is presumably enjoying the moment, keeping the political world on tenterhooks as he makes his decision.

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Money

January 10, 2008 - 17:43 ET by allanf

For once - and it is a rarity- Schnieder may be correct. Bloomberg is a very liberal "nanny stater". He is a lifelong Democrat who only switched to the Republican Party so he could garner the 2001 New York City Mayoral nomination. Since then he has led the way in banning transfats from restaurants and smoking in public places.

He appeals to the same group that would vote for a Democratic candidate.

Bloomberg's "leadership"

January 10, 2008 - 17:55 ET by Gothampc

"Since then he has led the way in banning transfats from restaurants and smoking in public places."

And not doing anything about the subway strike except telling people to go out and buy a bicycle. (He even said that the head of the striking union should not serve jail time as the law dictates).

And he can't seem to get the Twin Towers rebuilt so that business can return to New York.

And when people were concerned about a plot to blowup a fuel pipeline at JFK, his remark was "Get a life."

And there is so much more, but I get a headache thinking about it.

Twin Towers

January 10, 2008 - 19:40 ET by Gat New York

"And he can't seem to get the Twin Towers rebuilt so that business can return to New York."

In all fairness to Bloomberg the twin towers is the responsibility of New York State (Pataki and now Spitzer) and not NYC.

The rest is true.

Confessing my ignorance

January 10, 2008 - 18:00 ET by KC Mulville

Why was it that Bloomberg had to become a Republican to compete in an overwhelmingly liberal Democrat city?

I'm not being sarcastic, and this is not a rhetorical question. It's one of those things that I've often heard about Bloomberg, but never understood. I've heard it and taken it for granted without investigating, but suddenly it struck me here. I'm sure there's a good answer, but I don't know it.

Can someone explain it?

KC... I have wondered

January 10, 2008 - 18:05 ET by bigtimer

KC...

I have wondered that too and all I could come up with is that it was still fresh with 9-11 so following Rudy and his leadership I figured maybe people would feel safer with someone with an (R) after their name at the time...

Just a random guess on my part though...

Too Many Dems

January 10, 2008 - 18:40 ET by Gothampc

"Why was it that Bloomberg had to become a Republican to compete in an overwhelmingly liberal Democrat city?"

In 2001, the Democrats had six nominees for mayor. The Republicans had 1 lame duck. (Republicans spend zero amount of effort in New York State). Bloomberg switched parties in order to avoid being #7 and getting lost in the crowd. As a Republican is was a guarantee that he would skip all the way to Election Day without resistance.

Got... Thank you for the

January 10, 2008 - 18:49 ET by bigtimer

Got...

Thank you for the information here.

Now I know.

And that was all there was to it?

January 10, 2008 - 20:00 ET by KC Mulville

It's not that I doubt your answer. I'm just surprised no one else thought of the same thing. Nature abhors a vacuum, and I can't believe that Bloomberg was the only one available (or willing) to fill it.

Unless being a Republican in NYC is so abhorrent to NYers that in a city with 11 million people, no one else was willing to stoop so low as to become ... gasp ... Republican ...

NYC

January 10, 2008 - 21:09 ET by Gothampc

KC, I think in New York City, the statistic is 6 Dems for every 1 Republican. Literally, the Republican party couldn't care less about building a presence in NYC. Plus I don't think any normal person wants to be NYC mayor. The person would have to deal with the likes of Al Sharpton on a regular basis plus a million other headaches that occur in a big city.

Bloomberg knew that as a Republican he could slide all the way to Election Day. His Republican lame duck opponent, Herman Badillo, tried to run as a Democrat for mayor five times previously.

On the Democratic side, there was a big fight. Mark Greene had the backing of whites and was cozy with Al Sharpton. Freddy Ferrer had the support of Hispanics and blacks not following Sharpton. Bloomberg wisely could avoid that by moving over to the Republican side.

Too Many Dems

January 10, 2008 - 20:11 ET by allanf

Exactly right Gothampc .

In the Republican primary, Bloomberg only had to best another former Democrat: Herman Badillo. The Democrat field was crowded.

Bloomberg's personal wealth then allowed him to massively outspend Democratic Party nominee Mark Gree in the general election. Green was hampered by New Yorks very "liberal" campaign finance laws. Since Bloomberg was completely self financed, he did not have to play be the same rules.

He blitzed the market with advertising. He spent more than $50 million of his own money (- about $50 per vote). The rest is history.

Since 9/11 was the actual

January 11, 2008 - 10:20 ET by midnight cowboy

Since 9/11 was the actual day for the primaries (which was postponed for obvious reasons), let's not forget how Bloomburg sucked up to Rudy begging for his endorsemnet, only to trash the man now.

He is also a rabid

January 10, 2008 - 18:24 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love

He is also a rabid gun-banner and pro-U.N. stooge.

Plus he gives me the creeps...he looks like he could be Putin's brother.

Mean Gene

January 11, 2008 - 09:15 ET by fossten

Exactly right. Bloomberg is more anti-gun than Rudy. He and Schumer are absolute traitors to the Jewish community, considering gun control's Nazi roots. Must be that gas chamber mentality.

Forget 911, I dial 10MM.

Like I've said

January 10, 2008 - 17:41 ET by bigtimer

Like I've said before...

Run Bloomie Run! ....or whomever he installs with his $$$$...

Hey Hillary what goes around comes around...via Perot...she may be really shedding some tears if this happens...

LMAO!

Bloomers

January 10, 2008 - 19:46 ET by Gat New York

Apparently Bloomberg will run if he feels he can actually win.

He would either kill Hillary's chances of winning or he would be able to garner enough electoral votes to get the election into the hands of Congress, where we lose.

So I'm not so sure I am for Bloomers getting into this.

It's Part of the DNC Blame Game

January 10, 2008 - 17:46 ET by Gothampc

[Gothampc opens up Democratic Election Playbook to page 666].

In case the party doesn't win the POTUS election, there should be an independant running so that Democrats can blame the Republicans for splitting the vote. See "Did Nader Cost Gore The Election?" by Lefty Nutroots or "Dang, Lieberman Won" by Ms. Nanny State-Feminist.

[Gothampc closes Democratic Election Playbook and bows head to pray that God will smite a Democrat today].

While I'd welcome a liberal

January 10, 2008 - 17:52 ET by Chris Norman

While I'd welcome a liberal vote siphon, like Bloomberg, in the race, it makes one wonder. Just exactly what constituency group's call for him to run is Bloomberg hearing? Billionaire Liberal Mayors of NYC for Bloomberg '08?

Whackjobs

January 10, 2008 - 17:57 ET by Gothampc

The same whackjobs that elected him Mayor and Her Royal Clinton Senator. When you are that rich, you live in an echo chamber.

Chris, it's the siren song

January 10, 2008 - 22:52 ET by motherbelt

Chris, it's the siren song of his own ego...telling him that he is what the country needs, since the two parties apparently can't do anything right. We need Big Brother Bloomberg to tell us all what to do, what to eat, not to smoke, etc.

Bllomberg

January 10, 2008 - 18:02 ET by Sgthulka

LET HIM RUN!

He has a constituency of 1 = himself. There is no one, and I mean no one, clamoring for Mike Bloomberg to run for President, other than a few insiders (media and beltway).

Saw some polling. Most folks

January 10, 2008 - 18:50 ET by Gary P Jackson

Saw some polling. Most folks say they won't vote for Bloomberg. He's say he will enter the election if the two parties nominate "polarizing candidates", meaning he will jump in as a "centrist" and save the day. The guy is really full of himself.

New York

January 10, 2008 - 19:47 ET by Gat New York

I saw that on the tube but I believe it was only New York voters who typically like thir Mayor or Governor and don'twant them leaving. Unless you saw other data that I didn't see.

Bloomberg . . . a centrist?

January 10, 2008 - 19:53 ET by Galvanic

That Bloomberg would even consider himself a centrist is indicative of just how bizarre the Presidential race is. Bloomberg has never stopped being a liberal Democrat, regardless of his Republican and independent labels.

If he runs independently, he could very well siphon off some "any Dem But Hillary" Democrats. The number of Republicans he stands to siphon off is so negligible as to be dismissed.

blomberg

January 10, 2008 - 19:08 ET by surroundednyc

Bloomberg had to register and run as a Republican in order to get on the ballot. The Democrats already had a candidate. I believe it was Mark Green.

Run Bloomberg Run

January 10, 2008 - 19:20 ET by planetrepublican

If this is true let's try to get Bloomberg to run. This is so enjoyable, watching these dopey Dems tear themselves to ribbons. Bloomberg is not even a RINO, he is a scumbag. But so what! If it's bad for Hillary and Obama, it's good for us.

Through the looking glass

January 10, 2008 - 19:44 ET by pocomoco

This election cycle is becoming curiouser and curiouser.

Bloomberg is the globalist candidate

January 10, 2008 - 20:19 ET by Lame Cherry

As I blogged here earlier this week, Bloomberg is the reason the New York Times and Boston Globe were hammering global warming as a scam in order to taint Al Gore for their preferred cartel globalist in Bloomberg.

As I also blogged this is what the destruction of the Democratic Party is intended to accomplish as the cartel has promoted enough non Conservatives to ruin the GOP they are not even a factor.

So if it is not Hillary with sex tapes and criminal charges, not as I blogged Obama investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald and not flunky John Edwards........

Not GOP'er who Conservatives will rally behind.........

You have Al Gore wading in by super delegate vote to save the DNC.........

and Bloomberg the even more communist sweeping in the nut vote which Nader brought in and what does not vote for Ron Paul.

This has been set up to install either Al Gore or Mike Bloomberg as the next globalist president. The Times and Globe want Bloomberg, but in either case the next president will be world socialist green nut communist.

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Bloomberg

January 10, 2008 - 20:29 ET by docb

I have a dear friend in Oklahoma, a university professor, who called today to tell me that ' on the street the word is that if it is hillery he will run. That is so much better than Perot...it gets rid of the BCBC problem.

The Problem

January 10, 2008 - 20:33 ET by Gat New York

Apparently Bloomberg is being encouraged by certain business leaders who are, rightfully, concerned about a Hillary presidency. Interestingly they are not so concerned about an Obama presidency. Don't know why.

The reason why ????

January 10, 2008 - 22:04 ET by planetrepublican

Read this article in The American Thinker today. You will see the reason why.

Rational

January 11, 2008 - 05:06 ET by Gat New York

Makes sense. Sounds like Obama at least has a handle on reality and can be rationally dealt with, where the Clinton live in their own reality.

That explains why Obama is

January 11, 2008 - 06:42 ET by motherbelt

That explains why Obama is a better choice than Her Royal Clintoness, but it doesn't explain why Bloomberg would want in. Unless some business owners are encouraging him because they think he would be better for them than Obama would. And that just stokes his ego, which is what I think is the real reason he's thinking of running.

Bloomberg probably couldn't win in a three-way race. For one thing, he would never siphon off enough of the black vote, even against HRC, nevermind Obama. And I don't think he will bleed Republicans with his Big Daddy paternalism.

But hey, if he wants to shoot his own wad and split the Democrat vote, he's got a hearty "go ahead!" from me!

Over rating HRC

January 11, 2008 - 07:20 ET by Gat New York

Within the Dem party Hillary is hated about as much as outside her own party. Left wing libs will like Mike not just because of his stance on issues, but that he has actually taken action on many of these issues which Hillary just talks about.

What is also missing so far are the boatload of reminder press and advertising of the good ole Clinton years including the scandals and their inability to accomplish anything on all the issues she is so very much concerned about.

The black community in NYC like Mike and after Bill Clinton's not so subtle racial slur of Obama, don't be so sure the Clintons will get that much of the Black vote.

People in the business community I guess would be concerned about the real Hillary versus whatever she says to get elected. We know she is a closet socialist and is anti-business. She has already made statements that underscore her socialist tendencies.