Embrace him or dismiss him, there is one thing that the last few days have proven – New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has something to say. Exactly how he says it could have a major impact on the race for the Oval Office.

Pundits on all sides have an opinion on Bloomberg, from if he will actually run to what kind of impact he could have on the election.

Time has a story showing why Bloomberg would not gallop into the race. Here is a snippet:

On the day after he capped a campaign-style swing through California by ditching the Republican Party, the media mogul “did little to quiet the fierce speculation about a possible independent presidential bid,” as the Associated Press put it. He temporarily knocked Paris Hilton off the 24-hour news channels — and proved he’s a bit of a flirt himself. Needless to say, the punditocracy is in a tizzy, gleefully analyzing how Bloomberg’s billions will transform the already wide-open campaign landscape.

But sometimes a flirt is just a flirt. Bloomberg clearly wants to be a player in the 2008 election, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he wants to be a candidate.

And then there is a piece on Real Clear Politics from Cal Thomas that had this interesting tidbit:

Still, in announcing his new unaffiliated status, Bloomberg said something that caught my attention: “Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles, and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular ideology.” Not that Bloomberg was ever known for a rigid adherence to anything besides his money (he is a billionaire, in case you hadn’t heard), but still he may be onto something.

And then weighing in on what kind of impact Bloomberg may have on the race is pollster John Zogby:

On the electoral map, a Bloomberg candidacy puts almost every state into play. Suddenly, the required winning percentage in each is reduced from 50% plus one to just 34%.

Will he run, won’t he run? But more importantly will he run on banning transfat and cigarettes? The fast food and tobacco lobbies may be quivering, but a Bloomberg run up the middle if Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson are the nominees could make for the wildest presidential election since Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose effort in 1912.

Comments