Bloomberg Leaves the Party

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Douglas Muzzio, professor of Public Affairs at Baruch College, looks at the impact of Bloomberg shedding his GOP affiliation and what it means for his national ambitions.


Douglas Muzzio

Comments [22]

timothy from Lower Manhattan

Excuse me, but after the disasters of the Bush administration, I would hope that amateur hour was over.

Mr. Bloomberg has yet to fulfill his promise to put the people above special interests. And no PR campaign is going to convince me he's done that.

New York has become a place for the wealthy to throw their money around. Business and many good people who can't afford Bloombergopolis have fled. The development boom is an ugly nightmare, with "affordable housing" remaining an empty promise. The streets see nothing but noise and disorder, awash with drunken slackers who parade from one tavern to the next, whether they are smoking or not. Hot on their heels are millions of rats.

Fiorello Laguardia he is not. Mayor Mike will soon leave office; where we we be tomorrow?

Jun. 20 2007 11:34 AM
Jerry Krase from brooklyn

he has a great chance of winning as the biggest problem for any candidate is raising enough money and he has no need for that. he also is fortunately up against the worst collection of presidential candidates since the last presidential election. his biggest problem will be getting people out to vote on an independent line if he doesn't get a cross endorsement.

Jun. 20 2007 11:33 AM
Sonia from Queens

I Know why Bloomberg changed parties. It was because of me! In a phone survey I was asked if I would support Bloomberg for President. I said "Yes," then "Definitely yes." Then I said "Wait a minute. He's a Republican. I have to change my answer."

Jun. 20 2007 11:24 AM
Marlene from Manhattan

I agree with comment # 6. I would feel reassured as a citizen and more confident of our country's status in International affairs if Bloomberg was in charge. He is a sensible man, a great mediator and negotiator, and I would vote for him as President without a doubt.

Jun. 20 2007 11:01 AM
Carol Ingersoll from northern NJ

I so agree with Julie (also from NJ) that Bloomberg is straightforward and behaves the most non partisan of any political figure I have seen and heard, in years. It amuses myself that I have been so enthused and continuously engaged in following his 'story' although I obviously could not vote for him. His style is so 'logical' and calmly measured and while anyone that powerful has to have a well developed ego, I have not felt the same drive to be adored above the behavior to get things done, that most politicians seem addicted to ultimately. I am a lifelong Democrat and worry that he might derail that candidate and in doing so, help the Republican party....that could be tragic. I also tend to think he would not let that happen in this 2008 election so not sure how this could play out. I do favor him as someone who could get seriously good things done and carry himself admirally Globally...we so need that now.

Jun. 20 2007 10:55 AM
Brenda Bee from Far Rockaway

For me to decide on who to vote for really depends on who their running partners are, but I would be more inclined to vote for Bloomberg at this point. How about a Bloomberg/Gore OR a Gore/Bloomberg ticket?! I'd vote for them for sure :)

Jun. 20 2007 10:41 AM
Davy from New York, NY

Ideally, I would like to see Bloomberg as VP with the brief to sort out US policy in the Middle East, and Hagel as Defense Secretary in an Obama administration.

If Clinton beat Obama to the Democractic nomination (and Guillani wins the Republican nomination), I would vote Bloomberg.

And I must say a Bloomberg-Hagel or Hagel-Bloomberg ticket would make me reconsider my support for Obama.

Jun. 20 2007 10:34 AM
Judy Norinsky from Astoria


Three points: First, While I don't like Bloomberg's privatizing tendencies, I do believe strongly in planYC. I don't know what his intention is with regard to running for higher office, but if he does run, I would question his commitment to acheiving long-term sustainability in NYC. What will happen to the plan if he deserts it mid-term? Why would he start this and then desert the process.

Second, somehow I think he is too smart to be the perpetrator of yet another Perot/Nader effect on the election process by running as an independent.

Third, I suspect he always planned to make this party switch. However, the timing of it is interesting.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment,
Judy Norinsky

Jun. 20 2007 10:34 AM
Marion Fine from Brooklyn

Ever since Bloomburg's first term when, in mid-winter, he closed two shelters for homeless dogs (reported on the front page of the NY News at the time)I vowed never to vote for him again. No wonder scientist Blaise Pascal said that the more he dealt with people the more he loved his dog! Better had he substituted politicians for "people."

Jun. 20 2007 10:30 AM
Mia DeLaPaz from New Jersey

I live in New Jersey and did not have a chance to vote any of the three possible candidates. I am a Democrat and am currently supporting Hillary Clinton but I have to say that Bloomberg is a tempting alternative especially after what he said yesterday. I feel that our politicians are more concerned with marketing themselves and winning elections rather than what should be the most important issue at hand; repairing America's broken soul. Repairing America's moral and economic standing is not a partisan issue and I would surely vote for an independent candidate who recognized this.

Jun. 20 2007 10:30 AM
Robert from NYC

I would not vote for any of these folks but with regard to Bloomberg I don't think, as many seem to think, that CEOs and business/men/women make for good civic governing. There aren't very many good government people as it is in government today--two exceptions that come to mind Rep Jerry Nadler and NYS Sen Tom Duane. Bloomberg does well in NYC because there is no real "Government" in NYC, the city "Government" is really the city "Corporation" and that's why he succeeds here.

Jun. 20 2007 10:29 AM
PaxilNation from Manhattan

I would be very upset if Bloomberg took away votes from the Democratic nominee. And I bet he's afraid of that scenario, too. I don't think he'll run unless the Republican's nominee is extremely socially conservative, in which case he'll be taking votes from that party.

Jun. 20 2007 10:29 AM
Gary from Brooklyn

Mike is real good, but the west side stadium still sticks in my craw. It is a big enough error in judgement that I would hesitate to vote for him.


Jun. 20 2007 10:26 AM
John Celardo from Fanwood, NJ

Is it possible that Bloomberg is attempting to shake things up in the presidential race? Maybe he doesn't like what's happening among the current candidates, and is trying to influence the race in his own quirkey way.

Jun. 20 2007 10:25 AM
Erica from Brooklyn

I think he realizes that central politics works in New York and he is also making himself relevant to the new crop of voters (the blogging and youtubing population). I, as a young voter, don't have the affiliations with the democratic party that my parents had and so I am the first in my family to be registered as an independent as well. I find myself suspicious of both the democratic and republican parties and their respective agendas and I'm looking for leaders who are just interested in managing and managing well. Perhaps Bloomberg is wants to distinguish himself as a leader minus all the political party drama. That would at least be my hope...for all future candidates.

Jun. 20 2007 10:22 AM
larry roth from manhattan

major concern over billionaire candidtate.

'we' might like Bloomberg for his views today.

But what do we do with the next billionaire
when he or she is a far right conservative.

then all this progressive outside the stagnant parties talk would melt away


great show

larry roth

Jun. 20 2007 10:19 AM
Julie from NJ

Bloomberg is brilliant, refrains from political doublespeak and tells it like it is! Unafraid to confront difficult issues, he cuts through the nonsense and gets to the point. That would be most refreshing in a president. I would vote for him above all other candidates currently in the race.

Jun. 20 2007 10:15 AM
elle from New Jersey

Wonder how much Bloomberg's decision has to do with his competition with Rudy Giuliani. He followed him as mayor and now he might compete with him for the presidency (not just for the Republican nomination now).

Jun. 20 2007 10:12 AM
James Harvey from Brooklyn

Why didn't he do this before the mayoral election. He might have had my vote. I am not so much a yellow dog Democrat as a yellow dog anti-Republican. I considered voting for Bloomberg, but consider anyone's running as a Republican enough of a judgment error to lose my vote, even if I otherwise like him/her.

Jun. 20 2007 10:06 AM
J-F Vergel

PS. This is the kick in the A** that the Democrats and Republican need. Enough with partisanship and favors.

Jun. 20 2007 10:05 AM
J-F Vergel

I agree with the previous post... Bloomberg said he would not run for President but said nothing of Vice-Presidency. Perhaps with Hagel?

Jun. 20 2007 10:03 AM
Ken Ytuarte from Durham, NY

I can only guess that Bloomberg is positioning himself for a possible, if unlikely, VP bid, or for a Cabinet position on either side.

Jun. 20 2007 09:49 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.