Bloomberg and third parties

Michael Bloomberg's possible presidential run raises the possibility of a Ross Perot third-party impact on the race. Bob Shrum was quoted in Hotline: "[Bloomberg] would have a very strong record to run on. That old Dukakis line might have some resonance, though it didn't work for [ex-MA Gov. Michael] Dukakis: The issue in this election is competence." Could Bloomberg be a strong third-party candidate by appealing to middle-of-the-road independent voters, as Perot did? Are the conditions similar to 1992? In that year Ross Perot won a whopping 19% of the popular vote. These voters did not in fact swing the election for Clinton, as Mark Bohannon's analysis of the 1992 election shows. Though a majority of Perot's voters had voted Republican in 1988, the exit polls showed an even split 38-37 for Clinton-Bush as a second choice, and would not have swung the electoral college vote. Perot's performance was stunning, but it might not have had the impact of Nader's 2.7% of the popular vote in 2000. The Politico today: "Gore ended up losing the election to Bush by 537 votes in Florida, a state where Nader got 97,448 votes. Many believe that had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have gotten thousands of those votes and become president."


Voters in '92 were concerned about the economy and wanted change. Bohannon writes: "Front and center in [the 1992] election was the 'economy and jobs,' chosen by 42 percent of voters as the most important issue, according to VRS exit polls. Clinton won 52 percent of these voters, and Bush and Perot 24 percent.... Not surprisingly, the second most important factor for voters was 'bringing about the changes the country needs' (36 percent). Among this set of voters, Clinton's margin over Bush and Perot was a stunning 67-5-28."


After the fall of the Berlin wall, the unification of Germany, the end of the Cold War and the first Gulf War, voters wanted to move from foreign issues to problems at home. They were in no mood to reward foreign policy success, but instead wanted to focus on domestic issues. Having solved problems, on its own, doesn't win elections--promising to solve future problems does. The Iraq war will play a role in determining how a Bloomberg candidacy will be able to do. If Iraq is over and done with, then a third-party candidate might look more palatable, as voters would be willing to focus on something new. If not, it will be the overriding issue in '08, and voters, as they are a vast majority of the time, would be hesitant to go outside the two-party system.