KEY POINTS:
Why are we asking this now?
It has been an open secret since last year that Michael Bloomberg, 65, almost halfway through his second term as Mayor of New York City, might be tempted to make a third-party run for the White House in 2008.
In recent
weeks, he has fed the speculation by criss-crossing the country and relaunching his political website, michaelbloomberg.com.
But it reached fever pitch this week after he stunned the political Establishment by announcing he was leaving the Republican Party, which he had joined before making his first run for New York mayor in 2001.
Bloomberg, who until running for office had been a lifelong Democrat, has said repeatedly that he intends to serve out his term as mayor, ending in December 2009, and he reiterated this yesterday.
However, his decision to detach himself from the Republicans is still being widely seen as a first step towards a third-party bid in 2008.
How much chance do third-party candidates have?
History suggests Bloomberg would have an uphill struggle to win the presidency. The United States has had a stable two-party system for more than a century but there are precedents for independents.
Ross Perot, another business billionaire, was considered a bit of a lunatic by many when he ran on an anti-free-trade, anti-Washington ticket in 1992, but he did quite well, taking 19 per cent of the national vote.
Other recent independent candidates have included Ralph Nader for the Greens in 2000 (2.7 per cent) and George Wallace in 1968 (13.5 per cent).
However, because of the electoral college system, it is hard to win the White House, even with fairly deep support, if it is spread across the country. A candidate collects electoral college votes with each state that he comes first in. Coming a decent second in numerous states does not help. Thus, although his national popular vote was respectable, Perot did not win a single vote in the electoral college.
But will Bloomberg even stand for the presidency?
That is the question no one can answer, himself probably included. Things in favour of a third-party candidacy this time include recent polling that shows a large number of Americans deeply dissatisfied with Washington and the direction of the country.
Bloomberg does not have to decide until May, when the arduous task of getting on to the ballot in the 50 states would have to start. By that time, we should know who the nominees for the two big parties are and Bloomberg will be in a better position to calculate his chances of competing effectively. If he runs, he will be gambling on candidate fatigue among voters, who will have endured months of saturation coverage of the Establishment candidates.
So shouldn't he be raising money?
Candidates for the main parties enter the race so early partly to begin fighting for their respective party's nominations, which are decided in the primary contests early in the new year. But they are also drawn in early by the need to raise money. Not so Bloomberg, who has plenty of cash to finance a campaign. He is one of the richest men in the world - his personal worth has been pegged at more than US$5.5 billion ($7.21 billion) but it could be as high as US$15 billion. Recent reports suggest he is prepared to pour US$1 billion into running for the White House. It is partly the sheer weight of his money that is causing the other runners anxieties.
How come he's so rich?
Bloomberg was a partner in Wall Street brokerage Salomon Bros, running its equities division, when he resigned in 1981 to launch his own financial information business that became Bloomberg News. It was not long before his computer terminals were on the desks of traders and brokers around the world, feeding them real-time financial data. Although, technically, he bowed out as chief executive when he ran for Mayor of New York in 2001, he is still by the far the largest owner of Bloomberg, which remains a privately held company.
What effect would Bloomberg's presence have on the 2008 race?
Bloomberg's oratory is less than gripping but his entry into the race would shake it up. If experts agree his chances of winning are slim, they are divided on which of the two other candidates he would hurt more. In 1992, Perot was thought to have badly damaged the incumbent, George Bush snr, handing the election to Bill Clinton. But in 2000, it was Al Gore who suffered from the effects of Ralph Nader.
It may bother voters that Bloomberg is single - divorced from English-born Susan Brown. (His girlfriend is Diana Taylor, the state banking superintendent.) And the United States has never had a Jewish President, but few people think his religion would be much of an issue.
So what does Bloomberg stand for?
We have no full picture of his platform, but plenty of clues from his record as mayor. Moreover, in recent weeks he has increasingly begun to address national and global issues. His mantra is pursuing policies that promise practical impact without regard for ideological doctrines. For that reason, his disassociation from both parties makes sense.
On social issues he was always an odd Republican. He is for abortion choice and a supporter of gay rights. He is arguably the most outspoken US politician on stricter gun control. In the wake of 9/11, he dared to increase city taxes. He has successfully improved the performance of New York schools. On Iraq, he is opposed to a troop withdrawal deadline.
- INDEPENDENT
