After several months of Michael Bloomberg quietly laying down a base upon which he could run as an independent for President, he has ultimately decided that he will not move forward with a campaign. Bloomberg states that this is largely in part due to his fear that in having a three-way race will “lead to the election of a candidate he thinks would endanger the country: Donald Trump”. He had though, from the beginning, stated that he’d run if the race appeared to be between Trump and Sanders, but as it now looks like it will be Hillary Clinton for sure, Bloomberg has decided that it is time to end his looks into this possibility.
On the Bloomberg Review, Bloomberg states that while he could probably win a few very diverse states, he ultimately would have no chance of winning enough Electoral Votes to take the White House. He sees that the race would be very close for all three candidates, and could very likely end up being brought before Congress to decide. Once there the party who is in control would vote along party lines, thus giving the win to the candidate from that party. In this case, with Republicans controlling both Houses, it would almost definitely end up with Donald Trump as the winner. As stated before, Bloomberg does not want to provide Trump with an even greater chance of becoming President than he already has. Bloomberg has adamantly stressed how disastrous Trump’s presidency and stated policies would be for the nation - not only in corrupting our morals, as well as in “emboldening our enemies, threatening the security of our allies, and putting our own men and women in uniform at greater risk”.
For many who were counting on Bloomberg to run are now left yet again with the very unclear and difficult choice of picking between Hillary and Trump (the probable nominees for their parties). Many viewed Bloomberg as a moderate who help conservative economic policies, while all the while maintaining liberal social values, helping to bridge the gap between the two parties.
I think Bloomberg sums it up best about his, and many Americans, dislike of Trump, stating that “he has run the most divisive and demagogic presidential campaign I can remember, preying on people’s prejudices and fears. Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, appealed to our ‘better angels.’ Trump appeals to our worst impulses.” This said, I feel that Bloomberg ultimately made the right decision in choosing not to run, since I don’t feel he would have been able to make it to the Presidency, nor helped prevent Trump from making it there. Instead his running would have most likely taken away support from Hillary Clinton, thus providing Trump with an even greater chance at winning.
What do you think of Bloomberg’s decision not to run?
Do you think him running would have made a difference?
How will this impact voters?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-not-running-for-president.html?_r=0
9 comments:
I agree with Bloomberg in his decision not to run because think it could have resulted in a similar situation as what occurred in the 2000 presidential election with Ralph Nader. As a third party candidate Bloomberg would have close to no chance of winning and would instead likely split the Democratic vote and increase the chances of Trump winning, or possibly Cruz. Both make me worry about the end of any progress as a nation. Bloomberg can still have a large impact during the election season and his endorsement will help the Democratic party and possibly help to beat out Trump. I don't see this as having a large impact on voters. While some people found Bloomberg to be an appealing choice, he is ultimately a New York politician who has gained recognition but has limited national influence and would not have had far reaching effects in most states. Bloomberg's best strategy is to stay and continue denouncing Trump (although that doesn't seem to have stopped him yet @Romney). Furthermore, his campaign contributions and helping the Democratic candidate are far more valuable during the primaries and general election. Hopefully he can help and stop Trump, but so far even the Republican's establishment speaking out against him has done seemingly nothing to change voters' minds as Trump swept Michigan and Mississippi with Rubio, an establishment favorite before, fell farther and farther behind.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bloomberg-might-have-produced-president-trump/
Although I personally favor Bloomberg over both Donald Trump AND Hilary Clinton, I respect his decision not to run completely, and I do think that it is for the best. Now that it looks like the race will not be between Sanders and Trump, Bloomberg is correct in worrying about a three-way race doing more harm than good. He would appeal to a variety of voters for sure, but there is very little chance he could gain enough support to win the presidency at this point. While he may not be able to win, his running would have definitely impacted the race substantially. There is a large chance that his running would take votes away from Hilary and increase the chances of having a Trump presidency, so thank goodness that Bloomberg recognizes this and backed out. As to how Bloomberg's decision not to run will impact voters, I do not believe it will change much. Although many hoped he would run simply because they do not agree with the views of Hilary or Trump, I don't think many thought he would follow through. He made it very clear when this all started that he would only run if it came down to Sanders and Trump, which never sounded promising.
Bloomberg's decision to not run for the presidency was a smart choice on his part and also for the American people. Thanks to him, Hillary (most likely the Dem candidate) will not lose votes to Donald Trump (most likely the Rep candidate). As we all know, third party candidates, or those who run independently never win presidencies. As Gwen mentioned, when Ralph Nader ran for the presidency in 2000 he practically allowed Bush to win by causing a split between the democratic voters, causing a lower vote count for both he and Al Gore. Nader essentially cost Gore the election against Bush, and because of this I think Bloomberg is genius for realizing that a similar situation would be likely to occur if he ran as an independent candidate. I do think Bloomberg's decision not to run will certainly effect voters because now there is really no middle ground. Votes either go to (most likely) Hillary or Trump. As a result, this makes the presidential election an even tighter race because it has eliminated any possible competition for Hillary, and moreover the only competition that exists is solely between the two candidates from each party. I also believe that this excites the race. Many republicans have outwardly expressed how difficult it is to side with a candidate when several are unappealing to their political views. Now the question becomes, will these Republicans swing their vote to Hillary because they simply could not stand Trump in office, or will this be a situation in which Republicans will just have to vote for Trump because they have no other choice?
As much as I think Bloomberg would have been a good fit for President, I agree that it would be unwise to run if Hillary Clinton was in the race. However, should it be between Sanders and Trump (or any GOP candidate), as unlikely as this is, I feel like Bloomberg could save the day as a moderate candidate. Now, without him, we really are stuck between a liberal and a very conservative candidates.
I agree with Caroline 8; Bloomberg's decision not to run certainly does affect voters. With such a tight race now-- and nary a true moderate in sight-- things really are heating up for both parties. The impact I think that this will have on voters is that any Republican voters who are even on the cusp of being centrist will swing to vote for Hillary. This could work to benefit the Democrats, and frustrate the Republicans.
I do think that Bloomberg's decision not to run for president was a wise one due to the fact that it is so late in the race and that he would just divide the Republican or the democratic vote (most likely the democratic vote) and the presidency would most likely have been thrown to Trump. Also, Bloomberg's support would mostly lie in the New York Area as many others from other parts of the country do not know very much about him. As we have learned, the chances of a third party candidate are quite slim, even though a great amount of the American citizenry is made up of independents.
As Caroline 8 and Raswaglia have mentioned before, if Trump is the nominee for the Republicans, the presidency will most likely go to Hillary, because the Republicans maybe will not end up showing up at the polls to vote for Trump, and the independents will most likely vote for Hillary in this situation. I am not sure that this is totally true because there seems to be people from both parties that are supporting him due to his comments on immigration, jobs and foreign policy. Also, I cannot be totally sure that Trump will be the nominee because the Republican establishment is so against his becoming the nominee and there is a chance of a brokered convention. If a brokered convention does occur, the delegates can vote for any candidate that they would like.
Although I agree with Gwen's statement that if Bloomberg had run, this election may have turned out like the one in 2000, I believe that Bloomberg's candidacy would have garnered much more support than Nader's. In 2000, Nader siphoned many votes away from the Gore campaign by running on a similar agenda, but Nader did not gain enough support to actually prevent any candidate from gaining a majority. On the other hand, if Bloomberg had run, I believe that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would have earned majorities. Not only would Bloomberg have earned the support of the centrist electorate with his fiscally conservative and socially liberal platform, but he would have also garnered the support of Democrats who were dissatisfied with Clinton's nomination and Republicans who could not bear to stand behind Trump. Thus, Bloomberg would have earned a significant portion of not only the Popular Vote, but also the Electoral Vote, and so I believe that no candidate would win a majority in the Electoral College. As a result, the election would have ended up the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, which I would then proceed to select Donald Trump to be president, regardless of how controversial he may be. For this reason, I am very happy that Bloomberg decided not to run, as his candidacy may have almost guaranteed a Trump presidency.
Because Bloomberg is not running, I believe that this will drastically reduce voter turnout in the general election. Trump is almost guaranteed to win the Republican nomination, and regardless of whether Sanders or Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, many Americans will not be satisfied with either candidate. As a result, a substantial portion of voters may decide to simply stay away from the polls on election day because they see no point in picking between two mediocre (at best) candidates, and they do not want to stress themselves out with the task of choosing the lesser of two evils.
I agree with Amanda in the statement that Bloomberg wouldn’t have really had a chance to gain enough electoral votes to become president. In line with whenever an independent runs, they pull votes from their respective party’s front-runner and thus gives the opposing party a better chance of winning. I think that his decision not to run was a wise one because he didn’t really have the resources or time to run a correct and manageable campaign this late in the campaign trail.
I think the only difference him running would have made is given Trump a better chance of winning the election. He would just pull potential Democratic front-runner votes and thus give Trump the upper hand in the general election. This is much like what happened with the 2000 election and Nader in the Independent party, pulling votes from the front-runner and thus giving the opposing party a leg up in terms of who to vote for.
Honestly, I believe that Bloomberg made the right decision by not running since it benefits both the Democratic party and the election in general. Just like what many people believe, if Bloomberg had run, this election would be exactly like the one in 2000. By Bloomberg running in the election it would most likely take away votes from the Democratic party which is not good, if you're not a Trump supporter. In addition, Bloomberg would be coming in late, which means that he would not have the same momentum that other candidates have at the start of the race. However, if Bloomberg decided to join the Democratic Party, I believe he could've beaten both Clinton and Trump. I believe this because he was able to turn away and help improve New York in a way that boosted the economy in a huge way. Overall, I believe that if Bloomberg had run in this election, Trump would be the obvious winner since Bloomberg would be taking votes away from the Democratic Party.
I think that this is a true shame that Bloomberg decided not to run. If he were to run, I would seriously consider working on his campaign in CT, especially if the race were to turn into a Trump-Hillary race. Bloomberg would be the only level head in a sea of liars, criminals, racists, and pundits. As a centrist, it would be hard for him to define himself, but I think that he might draw equally from the constituency of both major candidates. He has shown himself throughout his career to be progressive but pragmatic in business, appealing to both parties. However, it is easy for me to see how he thinks that he will draw significantly from Hillary Clinton as she is a moderate liberal herself, and she has certainly shown her plentiful connections to business time and time again. Even if this were to land in the House of Representatives, I think it would interesting to see how he would fair. I certainly think that Trump would be hard pressed to find Congressional support, being so radical and anti-establishment. Hillary, however, is likely to have a lot of connections in Congress to vote for her, leaving Bloomberg in the dust. Overall, I am saddened at this news, and I wish him the best in the future.
Post a Comment