Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering making an entrance into the 2016 presidential race, and not as a Democratic or Republican candidate. Instead, Bloomberg is considering running as an Independent. Like Donald Trump, Bloomberg certainly has the resources to support a presidential bid-he would have to anticipate spending approximately $1 billion, which is within his power. However, both Trump's and Bloomberg's immense wealth, while undoubtedly needed for the campaign trail, can easily serve to move public opinion against them. As current NYC mayor Bill de Blasio has stated, "The people of this country are not going to turn to a billionaire to solve problems that were created largely by billionaires." Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio has gone further, declaring, "As of now [Bloomberg]'s just a private citizen who owns a big company." Bloomberg is the founder, owner, and CEO of Bloomberg L.P., the famous global financial data and media company that has made him the 13th-wealthiest man alive. Bloomberg L.P. is widely known for its Bloomberg Terminal, used by investment professionals the world over. Before forming his own company in 1981, Bloomberg began his career at the securities brokerage Salmon Brothers; he won his first term as New York mayor in 2001, and went on to serve three terms in total.
But why does Bloomberg think that he may be able to win the White House? What he seems to be relying on is that the Democratic and Republican nominees will be relative extremists: billionaire Donald Trump on the one side, and self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders on the other. However, one must question what Bloomberg believes would make him an attractive alternative to either of the eventual nominees. Over the course of his political career, he has managed to irritate liberals, conservatives, and everyone in between. Bloomberg is pro-abortion rights, pro-immigration reform, and pro-gun control. The latter alone will have the National Rifle Association armed to the teeth against him. But more broadly, why would individuals currently voting for Trump turn to Bloomberg, who is quite progressive in comparison, when Trump's campaign is centered on so-called "traditional American values" and deep-set xenophobia?
As for Bloomberg's appeal towards liberals, there's a lot to be desired. He has a history of privatizing and contracting out a variety of public city services; he supported Stop and Frisk, a program which allowed law enforcement to manually search pedestrians (ruled unconstitutional in 2013). Stop and Frisk in particular has left an enduring mark on Bloomberg's name as a result of its racial biases. In 2011, for example, out of 605,328 stops, half of those detained were African-American, 34 percent were Latino, and only 9 percent were white. Rather than being an effective crime prevention method, the Stop and Frisk program instead devolved into an often-humiliating system of racial profiling. As for his transgressions in the eyes of liberal voters, the list goes on: he is on the record as having fiercely opposed tax increases on the wealthy; he has supported bills which require employers to provide sick leave; he has opposed the raising of the minimum wage; he advocated for processes that require those receiving welfare in New York to be fingerprinted and drug tested. Liberal voters who currently favor Sanders have precious few reasons to turn to Bloomberg as an alternative.
Businesses along the campaign trail would no doubt rejoice if Bloomberg runs, as hundreds of millions of dollars would be pumped into local economies. Hospitality businesses would welcome-with open arms-an entirely new horde of political troops needing bed and board. The food and entertainment companies would likewise be catering to Bloomberg's campaign staff and fans. Many in the tech industry are rallying behind Bloomberg; they believe that, due to his longstanding support for education, immigration, and the growth of technology-oriented businesses, a Bloomberg presidency would spur much-needed growth in the field. As for advertising, the billionaire will have to pour hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars into the industry. But whether or not Bloomberg has the money to enter the campaign is not the question at hand. What are the former mayor's chances of success? Besides his general inability to relate to an average American voter, Bloomberg has ties to the media that will have many questioning the objectivity of his coverage; Kathy Kiely, for example, as Bloomberg Politics' Washington new director, has just resigned over the aforementioned conflict of interest. Considering his political history, Bloomberg might be better off putting all that capital to better use.