Bloomberg Sends a Message to Hillary
If Clinton can’t put away Bernie Sanders early and decisively, the door will open for the former New York City mayor.
Will another Big Apple Croesus join Donald Trump in vying for the Oval Office this year? That may be up to Hillary Clinton.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s interest in seeking the presidency as an independent candidate, rumored for months, was leaked to the media last weekend. And it’s hard not to see the timing—just over a week before the Iowa caucuses—as an unsubtle message to Mrs. Clinton: Put Bernie Sanders away decisively in these early-voting states or I’m joining this race.
Mr. Bloomberg, a former Democrat who switched parties to run for mayor in 2001, has said repeatedly over the years that his politics don’t fit neatly enough into either major party. He holds liberal positions on abortion and gun control but has more conservative views on education reform and policing. He supports immigration and Wall Street. He told New York magazine in 2013 that “it’s just impossible” for him to win the presidency. “I am 100% convinced that you cannot in this country win an election unless you are the nominee of one of the two major parties,” he said. “The second thing I am convinced of is that I could not get through the primary process with either party.”
These days, Mr. Bloomberg is less convinced that a White House bid would be futile, even if the odds remain quite long. True, he would not be financially dependent on a party apparatus. His vast fortune—the media mogul is worth about $36 billion, according to Forbes—could be tapped for television advertising to raise his national profile and qualify for the ballot in states where he chose to contend. Still, the process for electing a president continues to favor candidates from one of the two major parties, and the reality is that there has never been a successful independent bid for the White House.
Mr. Bloomberg thinks this election cycle may be different, and who could blame him? Like the rest of us, he has watched traditionally strong candidates with state executive experience and accomplishments go nowhere or drop out. He has watched the equal parts unconventional and unscrupulous campaign of fellow billionaire Donald Trump not only endure but thrive. He has watched Sen. Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist, draw some of the largest crowds of anyone in the race. Finally, Mr. Bloomberg has watched his preferred candidate, Mrs. Clinton, falter.
Mrs. Clinton continues to beat Mr. Sanders in national surveys but her campaign is in panic mode less than a week before the voting begins. She underestimated his staying power and is now worried that the senator could build even more momentum by winning both Iowa and New Hampshire. Nor does Mrs. Clinton’s consistently high unfavorability rating bode well for a general election campaign. Running to succeed a two-term president of your party is difficult, and Democrats want a candidate who can generate the enthusiasm necessary to mobilize the base and hold together the coalition of minority and millennial voters that helped Barack Obama carry key states like Colorado, Florida and Virginia. In Mrs. Clinton, Democrats have a candidate who struggles with likability.
The current investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state has undermined her ability to persuade voters that she is honest and trustworthy. Her unfavorability rating consistently hovers around 50%. In the latest CNN poll, the rating was 52%, versus 45% of registered voters who view her favorably. In the same survey, 50% of respondents had a favorable view of Mr. Sanders, while 33% had an unfavorable view. Among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton has a net favorability advantage over Mr. Sanders, according to Gallup, but only because she is better known than the senator.
“Clinton’s higher net favorable score reflects how much more familiar Americans are with her than they are Sanders, with 95% of Democrats able to rate her either positively or negatively, compared with 70% for Sanders,” reports Gallup. “But those who are familiar with both candidates are slightly more likely to view Sanders favorably (+84) than Clinton (+80).”
Mr. Bloomberg’s advisers say he probably won’t run if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee—which remains likely—but hasn’t ruled it out. He sees possibilities for strong support among independent voters looking for a sober and competent leader who doesn’t have Mrs. Clinton’s ethical baggage. But Mr. Bloomberg’s faith in the voting strength of independents may be misplaced. Mr. Obama lost the independent vote to Mitt Romney in 2012 and still won handily. Polls have shown that large majorities of voters who self-identify as independent actually lean toward one party or the other. It is doubtful that there are enough truly independent voters to deliver an election to a third-party candidate.
This piece originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal
______________________
Jason L. Riley is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, and a Fox News commentator.
This piece originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal