Who Would Bloomberg Hurt?

The easy answer that to question is the American people....at least those that wish to cling to any semblance of personal freedom that remains in a nation run amok with paternalistic government, be it the self-proclaimed kings who wish to indefinitely detain terror suspects without charges or those clamoring for prohibitions against smoking, transfat, or whatever the "public health" bogeyman of the hour may be. If the Sanctimonious Scolds of America were to crown a Chief Mullah in the current public policy sphere, Mike Bloomberg would be the hands-down victor, and anyone who values freewill should be more frightened at the prospect of a Bloomberg Presidency than a Sam Brownback Presidency. And the Napoleon complex that Bloomberg brings to New York City would naturally be expected to grow if, God forbid, his domain were to expand beyond the Big Apple. Anybody as convinced of the need to micromanage the lives of the peasantry as Mike Bloomberg is should not be trusted with power.

Now that I've gotten my own personal feelings towards the man and the dangerous ideology of homegrown tyranny that he represents off my chest (well...almost anyway), the next question becomes: does Bloomberg hurt Democrats or Republicans in 2008?

That's a difficult question and would vary depending on the pairings of candidates. Bloomberg's political profile doesn't lend himself to a natural constituency. He's socially liberal (which would hurt him in the South and in Ohio). He's an avid environmentalist (which will hurt him in Michigan and the coal states). And he's at least nominally a supporter of the war in Iraq (which kills his credibility among moderates who want out of Iraq but could never bring themselves to vote for, say, Hillary Clinton). It's difficult to see, just based on the issues, how Bloomberg gets to the 35-38% he would need to win the Presidency, but it's not difficult to see how he could be a spoiler.

In my opinion, the big loser in the event of a Bloomberg candidacy would be Hillary. One of the most polarizing people in America who evokes cringes even among many dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, Hillary Clinton's nomination would put in motion exactly the kind of "need for a change to bring the country together" message that would convince many would-be Democratic voters to pull the lever for Bloomberg rather than vote for Hillary. Under that scenario, the Republican candidate (ANY Republican candidate) would almost assuredly win the White House.

On the other hand, if Giuliani is the GOP nominee (and Hillary isn't the Dem nominee), Bloomberg could be the de facto protest vote of conservatives expressing their outrage at the Republican Party for nominating a social liberal like Giuliani. Granted, this would be a hollow protest as Bloomberg is to the left of Giuliani, but could nonetheless generate some momentum as a middle finger in the face of a Republican Party that has taken them for granted.

Ultimately though, Bloomberg could catch on regardless of his lack of natural constituency and positions, simply by being the "voice of moderation" in a politically polarized era that voters at least think they are sick of. Very few Presidential elections are ever about issues, so the Democrats can't count on the hypermajority of Americans now opposed to the war in Iraq dragging them across the finish line. If the Republicans nominate a back-to-the-fifties conservative like Fred Thompson and the Dems go with Hillary, the two parties could inadvertantly make Bloomberg's case for him....potentially paving the way for victory.

And with all the black markets that would arise in the face of Bloomberg's inevitable nanny-state prohibitions, expect his biggest campaign contributors to the insurance industry, organized crime, and Hezbollah.