According to a report from Tuesday's New York Times, GOP governor, Michael Bloomberg, has officially changed his political allegiance...again. This is not the first time he has undergone such chameleon-like political adaptation. He switched to the Republican party after a lifetime as a Democrat in order to run for governor in 2001. This time, however, he has declared himself to be independent of any political party. The last time a NY governor made such a dramatic political shift was in 1971 when then-Gov. John V. Lindsay switched his affiliation from Republican to Democrat.
The political punditry machine is in overdrive speculating that Bloomberg is setting the stage for an independent run for president in 2008. In a more recent article today, Bloomberg appeared to give hints toward such a course:
Asked whether he'd enter the race early next year if voters are lukewarm after the first wave of primaries, he said, "I'm confident that this country will have options. I do think the more people that run for office, the better, and then as we narrow it down, people will, I think, pick and choose and the choices will look good. And hopefully, this country is smart enough to pick somebody who is able to lead this country forward."
If Bloomberg has made this political shift to authenticate his evolving political convictions, and not for the pragmatic opportunities it presents, I have yet to hear what they are. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, Bloomberg may be on to something.
In a political race at any level, the more candidates that are participating, the greater the chance for any one of them to succeed. (Theoretically, for example, if you had ten candidates of equal caliber running in a primary and 100% voter participation, the winner would only need to win 11% of the vote to take home the crown.) Obviously, in the real political arena the numbers don't work out so neatly, but the principle still applies. (That is, in fact, one of the reasons why my uncle, Phil Crane, won Don Rumsfeld's old congressional seat in Illinois' 13th district back in 1969. With six other Republican candidates running in that race, the percentage of votes he needed to win was reduced considerably.)
Therein lies both the risk and the benefit of tossing one's hat in an already crowded race. For more unknown candidates (think Dem. candidate, Mike Gravel, and GOP candidate, Jim Gilmore), the risks are considerable. For better known candidates (even those like Fred Thompson and Gov. Bloomberg who are late to the dance), the benefits are very real. And with voter disatisfaction being what it is, Bloomberg's suspected strategy may prove effective...yet another twist in the ongoing political drama that is "Presidential Election '08". 
I don't understand why more candidates don't do this. It makes a lot of sense to me. Why waste your resources fighting in a primary, catering to a base that you have to then move away from during the general election? Once a candidate has strong name recognition, it seems like they could leave the party (with a wink and a nod) and save themselves the hassle.
Lieberman is a perfect example, though he did it out of necessity rather than a planned strategy. I guess there are just too many people that vote the party line and too much money in the party coffers.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | June 21, 2007 at 02:55 PM
There are probably a lot of voters who are tired of the division in this country that will follow Bloomburg and jump ship as well. He probably has a good chance.
Posted by: Mandy | June 21, 2007 at 04:44 PM
Bloomberg is a political hermaphrodite. The Republican Party has lost nothing with his defection. Better he should muddy the Dem water.
Posted by: Pete Ross | June 22, 2007 at 01:43 AM