TOPICS
TOPICS
The Bloomberg Scenario
One of the more interesting questions asked in political circles these days is whether there is any room for an independent presidential candidate, such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll indicates that in a three-way general election matchup, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., would pull 42 percent of the vote, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would get 34 percent, and Bloomberg would attract 11 percent. The survey, taken July 27-30 by Democrat Peter Hart and Republican Neil Newhouse, two of the best pollsters in the business, shows Clinton getting 76 percent of the Democratic vote, Giuliani 73 percent of the GOP vote, and Bloomberg 16 percent of the independent vote.
But what is the potential for an independent presidential candidate? When half of 1,005 adults surveyed were asked, "Would you strongly favor, mildly favor, feel neutral, mildly oppose, or strongly oppose building a new independent political party to run a credible candidate for president?" 31 percent said they would strongly favor and 22 percent said mildly favor -- meaning 53 percent seem at least open to the idea. Of the remaining respondents, 16 percent were neutral, 12 percent were mildly opposed, and 14 percent were strongly opposed.
Interestingly, 58 percent of men said they would favor the idea, contrasted with 50 percent of women; 57 percent of 18-to-34-year-olds and 60 percent of those ages 35 to 49 supported the idea as well.
On another question to half the sample, respondents were given four choices: 30 percent said they would "consider voting for an independent candidate regardless of who the nominees for the two major parties were," while 22 percent said they would "consider voting for an independent candidate if I did not like my own party's nominee."
Together, those groups constitute a slight majority of 52 percent. Thirty-four percent indicated they would consider voting for an independent only if they did not like either major party's nominee, and 11 percent said they would never consider voting for an independent.
Certain to cause some head-scratching is that while 45 percent of Democrats responded favorably to the idea of building a new independent party, 55 percent of Republicans did. This could simply reflect that Republicans are more disillusioned with their party these days. Not too many years ago, those numbers would likely have been reversed.
To win a majority in the Electoral College, an independent candidate would probably need 37 or 38 percent of the popular vote -- maybe as much as 39 or 40 percent. At that point in a hotly contested three-way race, candidates would probably start winning a lot of states by narrow margins.
Winning a smaller plurality of the popular vote would simply throw the election into the House, where each state's delegation would have a single vote. Today, the math indicates that Democrats would prevail by one vote, but, of course, the number of delegations controlled by each party could shift in the upcoming election.
Obviously, trying to win the presidency is an even more formidable exercise for an independent than for a major party nominee. An independent might start with the support of about 11 percent of the electorate. Combining that with the $1 billion that Bloomberg could pump into his own campaign, it might not be implausible for his support levels to hit the mid-to-high 20s, perhaps even attracting the 30 percent or so who seem particularly open to an independent candidacy.
But for Bloomberg to get from, say, 30 percent to the high 30s, the level probably needed to win the necessary 270 electoral votes, the public would have to be repulsed by both major parties' nominees because they had been so badly damaged.
That's possible, given that the Swift Boaters were the first of their particular genre but aren't likely to be the last. A good guess is that there will be "independent" groups on the left and right intent on carving up the other side's nominee and showing little regard for restraint, good taste, or fairness. And that's a recipe for creating a disgruntled electorate willing to wish a pox on both major parties' houses.
COMMENTS
- “To win a majority in the Electoral College, an independent candidate would probably need 37 or 38 percent of the popular vote -- maybe as much as 39 or 40 percent. ” I will not fight your statistics but for as little at 37% of the vote to be able to determine our next POTUS, is truly frustrating. As for whether a 3rd party candidate could win the Presidency; neither party, like the US, wishes to have to fight on more than one front. While token gestures are paid to true “democracy”, the US power structure will continue to control 3rd party candidates through Electoral voter appointment. Been researching the Electoral College (EC), the arguments for and against, and the only folks who seem to benefit from this dinosaur are the power brokers. Most such debates offer two main reasons. 1. That the EC gives disproportional voting power to rural areas. I.e. Small number of residents can ban together, throw their combined Electoral votes, and therefore influence in the presidential election outcome. We heard so much about the Iowa caucus. That importance diminished recently, NOT because they lost Electoral votes but because other states moved their primaries to the same day. I.e. the Iowa primary was important because of timing and publicity, not its 7 measly votes. Modern voting is not split between urban and rural but rather, since the mid-fifties, by fear mongers and economic inequities. 2. That the Electoral College maintains the separation of powers. “The President was not directly elected in part due to fears that he could assert a national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the other branches, and potentially result in tyranny.” (Wikipedia) That fear was epitomized in FDR; who was not defeated by the EC; and the EC has had NO effect on the consolidation of Executive Power being seen today. Ask not if a 3rd party candidate can be elected, ask instead “Why the heck doesn’t my vote count?!” The EC ensures the President will be elected from one of the two major parties. Elimination of the EC might cut campaign cost effectiveness and permit the election of a popular candidate over the field of mix blessings we have today. Look around, what if you could vote for Colin Powell? Looks better than 95% of the candidates I’ve seen. One person, one vote! Tip off Posted August 15, 2007 2:41 PM
- I agree with George. In the current state of American politics, a third-party candidate will have no roll other than spoiler. If people are truly interested in a viable and competitive third-party, they need to start at the grass roots level and work their way up. Unless you have an All-Star Candidate that is relatively disconnected from an established party, that person won't be able to overcome the electoral college challenge. I think that might take more of a Donald Trump than a Mike Bloomberg - and I don't know that even Donald Trump could do that. Lori Pellnitz Posted August 14, 2007 2:16 PM
- Polls are certainly a valuable tool providing the media with something to write about during election cycles. Yet the fact remains that we are a very polarized society - Democrats vs. GOP (notice I used vs. as opposed to and). All an independent candidate can do in a presidential election is siphon votes from both parties. They cannot win. George Ballenstedt Posted August 14, 2007 6:50 AM
