Unity 08

It’s hard to make centrism sexy.

In case you haven’t already seen the news, Unity ‘08 is scaling significantly back.  From a letter sent to their mailing list:

At the current moment, we don’t have enough members or enough money to take the next step toward achieving ballot access in 50 states, reaching the goal of establishing our online convention, and nominating a Unity ticket for president and vice president this coming fall.

The past year has taught us that it’s tough to rally millions for a process without a candidate or an issue. In the past, third party movements that have broken through the monopoly of the established parties have always been based on a person (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ross Perot in the last decade) or a burning issue (slavery in the case of the insurgent Republican party in 1860). Motivating people to fix a broken system that drives candidates to the extremes by creating something more inclusive and sensible has proven to be a lot harder than we expected.[...]

And so reluctantly, especially given the volatility of the present situation, we’re forced to scale back, but not cease our operations, and suspend our ballot access project. Our website will become less interactive (it takes staff to answer hundreds of e-mails a day) and we can’t in good faith make the $5 million commitment necessary to make a serious start on ballot access.

But we’re not closing our doors. We believe it is important to see our case against the FEC through (both for Unity08 and any similar movement in the future) and be ready to gear up if (when) we win our case and political circumstances warrant later this spring. Unity is in the air right now, and Mayor Bloomberg seems poised to run on his own campaign (and the fact is that two independent candidacies wouldn’t work) if the parties leave the sensible center open. But all this could change in a matter of weeks.

Ah, well.   It was a nice idea.  However, sadly, it seems that Americans are hardwired into thinking that we can only have two major parties, plus assorted nuts outside that norm handed down from on high (or at least from Andy Jackson and Abe Lincoln).

Two Bloomberg-oriented articles have caught my eye in the past couple of days.

First, from MSNBC, we see that Bloomberg could very well be a man after my own heart — a politics and stats junkie:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has quietly been polling and conducting a highly sophisticated voter analysis in all 50 states as he decides whether to launch an independent presidential bid, associates said Wednesday.

The exhaustive data collection started months ago, and when the review begins shortly, it will provide the data-obsessed billionaire businessman with the information he will use to decide whether to make a third-party run for the White House.  [...]

Using the microtargeting model, research firms working for Bloomberg are gathering comprehensive information on voters throughout the country, such has who owns a home, has children in college, where they vacation, type of car or computer and past political support. All the puzzle pieces will then be arranged to create a picture of each individual.

Most of the data already exists in commercial databases that the multibillionaire Bloomberg can simply purchase. It will then be analyzed to determine how each voter fits into several categories: “strong supporter,” “persuadable supporter” or “potential volunteer.”

A data-driven campaign –  I imagine that even Karl Rove would nod in approval.  However, hopefully the folks doing the analysis on the data won’t lose sight of the fact that voters do not always behave rationally or as advertised, which tends to cloud up the analysis a little bit.

Meanwhile, looking at the future of Unity 08, this story can be seen at the New York Daily News:

A source familiar with the Bloomberg for president movement says the bipartisan Unity08 effort is poised to shut down its Web site, reconstitute as a Draft Bloomberg site and launch its own 50-state signature-gathering operation on behalf of the supposedly reluctant would-be independent presidential candidate. [...]

It’s unclear whether this would be some kind of publicity stunt for Unity08, which has been ignored, or even flat-out ridiculed, in some corners, or a real, honest-to-goodness sign that Bloomberg is serious about running for president and not simply trying to maintain relevancy in his lame-duck years.

Another sign of more fun to be found late this winter, perhaps?

Over the weekend in Oklahoma, there was a meeting of Bloomberg with some centrist folks with ties to Washington, from which a few of us were cautiously wondering if we might see a viable third party candidate (Bloomberg, specifically) emerge.

The New York Times suggests, however, that Obama’s victory in Iowa, and subsequent surge may be deflating centrist prospects in ‘08, as political demand for moderation and centrism wanes in the presence of a candidate with the “change” franchise seemingly locked up.  Quoting the Times:

Mr. Obama has stressed that he wants to move beyond gridlocked politics and usher in an era of national unity. A key organizer of the effort to draft Mr. Bloomberg for a presidential run acknowledged in an interview on Monday that that Mr. Obama’s rise could be problematic.

“Obama is trying to reach out to independent voters, and that clearly would be the constituency that Mike Bloomberg would go after,” said Andrew MacRae, who heads the Washington chapter of Draft Mike Bloomberg for President 2008. “An Obama victory does not make it impossible, but it certainly makes it more difficult.”

Given that the last I heard, Clinton still had a hefty amount of support in some of the large, delegate rich states still on the primary docket, and that would have me thinking it’s a bit premature to start picturing Obama in the White House. 

However, I suppose that this evening’s results in New Hampshire, and the subsequent spinning, could change enough folks minds.

That being said…an interesting idea that has crossed my mind — I wonder how a Bloomberg/Obama or Obama/Bloomberg ticket would fare in a 3 way race with Clinton and whomever emerges from the GOP brawl.

I’ve been half-expecting to see desire for a centrist platform to be raised during the ‘08 campaign crumble under the weight of details, as well as momentum from the Dem/GOP duopolistic juggernaut. So, I was very encouraged to see this article in the Washington Post:

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a “government of national unity” to end the gridlock in Washington.

Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to “go beyond tokenism” in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.

Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.[...]

“Electing a president based solely on the platform or promises of one party is not adequate for this time,” Boren said. “Until you end the polarization and have bipartisanship, nothing else matters, because one party simply will block the other from acting.”

It looks like the rubber is starting to hit the road. What will be most interesting to see is if that group (or Unity ‘08) can stay focused on realistic stances, rather than getting too hung up on particular positions that lean in one direction or another in the political spectrum.

While driving home this evening, I pondered, in the wake of Lieberman’s endorsement of McCain—what if McCain doesn’t win the GOP nomination, and what if Unity ‘08 doesn’t snag Bloomberg?

Unity ’08’s rules call for a ticket featuring both a Democrat and a Republican.

Could Unity ‘08 run McCain and Lieberman (assuming “Connecticut for Lieberman” is an adequate proxy for “Democrat”)?

Apparently I’m not the only person pondering this. I got home, and found this editorial from the New York Sun in my reading pile:

Senator Lieberman’s decision to flash his famous independent streak by crossing party lines and endorsing Senator McCain for president might seem to take some wind out of the sails of the idea we have been nursing of a presidential campaign by the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg. If Mr. McCain fills the niche of the candidate who can occupy the centrist terrain and attract independents such as Mr. Lieberman, the Democratic Party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee, what’s the need for Mr. Bloomberg?[...]

A couple of days ago, post appeared on Third Party Watch which caught my eye:

I’ve been asked many times to work on some sort of fusion activity between Libertarians, Greens and/or Constitution Party members, but have never been presented with any long term solution which looked viable. Obviously, the Ron Paul campaign has a lot of support from both Constitution Party members and Libertarians, as well as some Green support. However, I see this as a one time alignment of the stars, based on one particular candidate (as contrasted to the other leading major party candidates) and the current international and domestic political situation.

Unity08 seems to be trying for a different sort of political union and I’m curious about what might or might not work for them, too.

Frankly, I don’t think any such fusion or union has much of a chance of succeeding for more than one or two election cycles because there are so many divisive issues (abortion, immigration, race issues, foreign policy, taxes and spending) that it can’t work. Am I wrong?

You know, I’ve periodically daydreamed about “major” third parties temporarily pooling their resources to run a slate of candidates on an “end the duopoly” platform. The wide range in political ideologies of those parties would make it difficult to have much more of a platform. However, if you wanted to try to achieve enough critical mass to be able to sell the idea of the Dem/GOP political duopoly needing to be broken… I’d bet a temporary alliance could be forged for one election cycle.

I don’t expect it to happen, but it is an intriguing idea. That’s part of the reason that I’ve been curious about Unity ‘08. Although Unity doesn’t a “third party fusion” group, their concept of drawing candidates from both of the major parties with an eye towards encouraging responsible collaboration, rather than political bickering, has some theoretical appeal.

I thought that conventional wisdom indicated that Bloomberg actually meant it when he said that he wasn’t planning to run for President.

However, an article at HuffPo suggests that conventional wisdom might be shifting again:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been receiving foreign policy briefing sessions on a wide variety of topics, providing the strongest indication yet that he is considering a run for the White House, the Huffington Post has learned.[...]

These sessions dramatically contradict Bloomberg’s denials that he is planning to run for president. The one aspect of his possible candidacy that is considered missing is foreign policy experience. These strategy sessions with Soderberg seem clearly designed to fortify that weakness.

And, in case anyone was wondering (like I was), according to Real Clear Politics, the most recent poll on the subject suggests that in a 3-way Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg matchup, the current standings are:

• Giuliani: 38
• Clinton: 43
• Bloomberg: 11

Bloomberg was polling closer to 20 percent this summer, when rumors regarding his potential run were stronger.

It looks like Bloomberg is starting to be a little less coy about his not running for President. From Reuters:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he cannot win the U.S. presidency and won’t run, the strongest statement to date about his intentions for the 2008 presidential race.

Bloomberg previously had said he had no plans to run, which failed to quiet speculation that he was planning an independent bid for the White House.

From a purely strategic “where do I fit between the major candidates” perspective, I think it’s a little too early to make that call, but it is perhaps understandable given how the political winds are blowing. I think it’s not unlikely that the gap between the Democratic and GOP nominee might not be wide enough for a centrist to claim a plurality of votes.

However, I also suspect that a certain amount of that shift in tone would be the result of believing that someone who calls it like he sees it is unelectable and/or likely to be ineffective in the nuanced world of federal politics. He may be right, but that’s a shame, since a little bluntness and honesty would be good for the country right about now.

Political Wire points to an AP article reminding us that Bloomberg isn’t a blemish-free candidate:

Before his election as mayor in 2001, Bloomberg was the target of a sexual harassment suit by a female executive who accused him of making repeated raunchy sexual comments[...]

I can’t help but think that if we seek perfect, wise saints as our political leaders, we’re going to be repeatedly, sorely disappointed.

I don’t mean to discount how vile harassment is, but we have had adequate political leaders before who have been guilty of some pretty despicable things, and many more who have been accused (rightly or wrongly) of certain vileness. However, usually they have been able executives and politicians in spite of those lapses.

Consider, for example, Bill Clinton, around whom several scandals swirled, who was guilty of cheating on his wife with a political intern, and who didn’t exactly provide the best answer to the world when questioned about whether he sampled of the ganja in college. Yet, many Americans seem to have found him a tolerable President…even if they wouldn’t be willing to allow their daughters alone in a room with him.

I’d hope that if Bloomberg runs, he’d address this bit of personal history appropriately and hopefully deflate it from being too much of an issue. I’d hope that Americans can respect a guy who admits his mistakes and has learned from them, particularly after living with an administration that seems to live in denial with its belief that it is incapable of making mistakes.

The Washington Wire Blog at wsj.com relays an announcement made by Mayor Bloomberg:

I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our City.

Of course, folks are speculating whether this is yet another sign that Bloomberg might be running despite his vehement denials to the contrary.