Three Reasons Why Bloomberg Is Not Perot or Nader and Will Not Spoil The Election!

A common question in regard to the Bloomberg presidential bid is, “won’t Mike Bloomberg just mess up the election like Perot or Nader?” Off the cuff my response is, “absolutely not, Bloomberg is going to win!” While I usually get a laugh out of that response, it is not fulfilling, so let me explain:

Experience - Mike Bloomberg has governing experience, in one of the world’s largest cities. His record in NYC is impeccable. Ross Perot did not have any such experience. Ralph Nader’s experience was lobbying and lawsuits, which is different than managing a functioning government.
Ideology - Mike Bloomberg is a moderate-independent on almost every single issue. Ross Perot ran center-right in 92 and received 19 percent of the vote, between a right-leaning Bush, and a center-left Clinton. Ralph Nader ran as left of Al Gore in 2000. The ideological gap between the two candidates to come out of the primary race in 2008 will be significant and perfect for a mainstream moderate ticket.
Running Mate - As an experienced, elected politician, Mike Bloomberg is going to choose a reasonable moderate for his Vice-President. So far: Hagel, Obama, McCain, Nunn, and Gore have all received incredible amounts of coverage regarding the possibility of getting on the Bloomberg ticket. Again, Perot picked someone with no political experience and Nader picked a running mate with much less visibility and mainstream appeal.

So those are some of my thoughts on why Bloomberg will not spoil the 2008 election. What are your thoughts on this subject? How does Mike compare and differ from other third-party choices?

5 Responses to “Three Reasons Why Bloomberg Is Not Perot or Nader and Will Not Spoil The Election!”

Kenyon Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Another factor is that Perot ran such a goofy campaign in 1992, He quit in the middle of the summer because of threats made to one of his children. He re-entered the race but never regained his polling share.
Kevin Moore Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Perot got almost 20% of the vote in 92 despite the fact that the person who would have been a heartbeat from the presidency couldn’t put together two coherent words. The VP problem was the sole reason why I didn’t vote for Perot in 92 - and I’m sure a lot of people thought this way as well. Bloomberg won’t make that mistake (plus he’s a superior candidate).

Hagel is the ideal choice for VP, IMO - a moderate Republican from the heartland.
Andrew MacRae Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Indeed, in June of that summer the polls were quite interesting: 33% for Bush, 30% for Perot, 24% for Clinton. After that is when Perot quit, he never regained his traction. NY Times
Karin Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Perot and Nadar were part of the 3rd Party fringe. Perot had poorly experienced campaign strategists who had won few, if any, elections. Both ran as Washington outsiders, but had no support within the political structure.
Bloomberg could run as a very well connected, and admired, outsider with a election winning team close at hand.
Ross Who? Why People Seek to Stereotype Mike Bloomberg | Unite For Mike Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
[…] journalists and citizen reporters have a bizarre obsession with comparing Mike Bloomberg to Ross Perot. As we have written before, we don’t think this comparison makes sense for three fundamental […]