Bloomberg's Favorable Rating Is Teh Suck

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:56

Michael Bloomberg is the great rich hope for elite media types everywhere. He promises to be able to do something no mere non-billionaire can: dispense with voters, activists and political parties altogether. As he said yesterday:

“We all know that spending decisions in Washington are driven by whatever will attract votes and campaign cash,” he said in criticizing the government for running up enormous budget deficits over the last few years.

Yep, it is really a horrendous state of affairs when elected officials in a republic pass legislation that is designed to appeal to the people who elected them. As Digby notes:

Imagine that. Attracting votes and campaign cash. How tacky. Yes, what we clearly need is benevolent billionaire dictators who ignore the voters and care about nothing but their own interests.

Yes, someone who does not need voters, donors, or political parties and who will instead act entirely in the interest of media elites is the only person who can truly pull this country together. It is a good thing he doesn’t need voters, since they don’t like him very much:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 1/20-22, 1,008 adults, MoE +/- 3.1
Candidate Very Fav Som Fav Neutral Som Unfav Very Unfav Don’t Know Net Fav
Obama 19% 30% 22% 11% 14% 4% +24%
McCain 14% 31% 26% 15% 7% 7% +23%
Edwards 10% 27% 29% 12% 15% 7% +10%
Clinton 24% 23% 11% 11% 30% 1% +6%
Huckabee 9% 21% 26% 16% 13% 15% -1%
Romney 7% 21% 24% 19% 13% 16% -4%
Bloomberg 4% 10% 34% 11% 7% 34% -4%
Paul 4% 11% 26% 11% 14% 34% -10%

So, Michael Bloomberg is less popular than the top three Democrats and the top three Republicans running for President right now. He even has lower overall favorables than Ron Paul. Fortunately, since he doesn’t think appealing to the voters is a worthy activity for elected officials, it actually seems like this low favorable rating was one of his goals.

More in the extended entry.
Chris Bowers :: Bloomberg's Favorable Rating Is Teh Suck
Now, favorable rating is not determinative of voter performance, so let’s look at how well Bloomberg does in general election matchups compared to a wildly popular politician like Pat Buchanan, who otherwise known as America’s Sweetheart:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, Nov. 1-5, 2007, 1,509 adults, MoE 2.5
Clinton 44%, Giuliani 35%, Buchanan 12%
Clinton 42%, Giuliani 29%, Bloomberg 10%

It would appear that the ultimate problem with the High Broderist desire for Bloomberg is that not only do the pro-Bloomberg types have no need for the voters and activists, the voters and activists have no need for Bloomberg, either. While clearly doing away with voters and activists altogether is indeed one of the ideals of the Bloomberg backers, unfortunately for them that is currently impossible in our system of government. I mean, even in order to steal an election in America you have to be close to winning, and Bloomberg has a worse favorable ratio than Mitt Romney, has a lower favorable total than Ron Paul, and attracts fewer voters than Pat Buchanan.

Of course, since the support of actual voters is an anathema to the Bloomberg supporters (despite six months of poll masturbation), none of this will actually matter. They would rather live in Brooklyn than actually stoop to the level of appealing to voters.

Update: Bloomberg would even lose New York City by more than 30 points against every Democrat.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

What the poll (0.00 / 0)
says to me is people don't know Bloomberg and nothing more.  He leads all candidates in Don't Know and Neutral. 

That nice (4.00 / 1)
It is nice that polls speak to you in that manner. That 34% of the country doesn't know who Bloomberg is certainly means that the opinion of the 66% who do know him don't matter.

[ Parent ]
look at it another way (4.00 / 1)
68% of people either don't know him or are neutral.

[ Parent ]
Or look at it another way (0.00 / 0)
He comes in last in every category except Neutral and Don't Know where he comes in first.  If that doesn't show people do not have an opinion about him I don't know what would.  Let's assume for a second I'm right, most people don't know much about him - what would you expect his poll numbers to look like?  Would there be any change from what we are seeing here?

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
as posted below, a California Field Poll (pdf) shows that while 52% of California voters have an opinion of Bloomberg, 62% would definitely not support him and 25% would consider it.

That probably has less to do with Bloomberg one way or the other and more to do with people already choosing a side and/or candidate.  in 92, Perot announced in February and this year is a lot more saturated.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
The early 2001 mayoral polls looked similar (0.00 / 0)
He spent 75 million dollars.  He flooded my mailbox with at least 2 huge glossy mailings day for the last 2 weeks of the election.

And I know, I know I can't believe I am saying this but without 9/11, he wouldn't be mayor.

9/11 was NYC Primary day in 2001. It was looking good for Mark Green eraly in the day.  the polls were closed sometime before noon.  The primary was rescheduled for 2 weeks later, 9/13.  Neither Green or Ferrer got a 50+ majority , but Ferrer led Green.  A runoff was scheduled for 9/27.  It got nasty.  There were charges of racism involved by the Ferrer folks against Green.  Green won the runoff.  That left only 5 weeks for the election.  Ferrer refused to endorse Green until just before the election. guiliani now a hero, after having been considered a jerk by most NYers, endorsed Bloomberg. Hispanics voted for Bloomberg. My mailbox gets flooded and Bloomberg wins.  I remember calculating that it cost him about $168 per vote.

Results link

Article with the scenario by Robert George, a conservative but usually a decent reporter.


Now this was just to get a popular vote margin....going after 270 elelctoral votes is another thing.  It is not getting the most votes in aggregate or taking some away from the R or the D.  270 elelctoral votes is many steps harder.  So could this NY City scenario play out again.....much less likely. 

However we all have to hope he has enough concern for his country, that he wouldn't want to throw it to the Republicans....but a man with 11-13 billion dollars has an ego and the 1-2 billion it would take and, worst of all, Doug Schoen to manipulate the statistics so he can think he could win.

And then the Republican nominee wins....and I don't think he would be swayed by the actual nominee chosen by either party.  You don't get to be a billionaire without thinking well of yourself.

Lesson....animosity creates ill will


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
A billion dollars can easily sell a product few knew they wanted before.  Think about every new offshoot of the bottled water/energy drink industry over the past few years.

[ Parent ]
Bloomberg isn't exactly an average guy (4.00 / 1)
He's short, plump and Jewish, along with very, very rich, and not likely to play as well outside NY/NJ/CN and CA. 

There's a limit to what one can sell when something quite satisfactory is already on offer.  (New Coke, anyone?)

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
dont misunderestimate bloomberg (0.00 / 0)
he's not an idiot like giuliani. hes far more savy, which makes him more dangerous

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
a call to retire "teh" (4.00 / 1)
I think the analogy of Bloomberg to "New Coke" makes a lot of sense; there's not a lot that he offers that some other subset of candidates -- mix and match in the VP slot! -- does not.

In the meantime, I'd like to note that jokes that rely on misspelling "the" have very high negatives among the audience behind this particular computer screen. Twelve-year old grammar generally makes people think you're a twelve-year old!

Nonsense! (4.00 / 1)
Get with the times, man! "Teh" is the coolest thing this side of the Mississippi!

[ Parent ]
Field Poll (0.00 / 0)
Polling California, 62% of people definitely would not vote for Bloomberg (pdf). Only 25% would even consider it.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

Bloomberg Apathy (0.00 / 0)
Looks to me as though people either don't know or don't give a crap about Bloomberg.  I reckon that's to be expected, really.  I either don't know or don't care about the mayors of just about every city in the country (world, even).  If he actually started running for national office, that, presumably, would change - one way or the other (not necessarily, though; Ron Paul is apparently running for something, and is a close runner-up to Bloomberg in the DK/DGAS race at 60%).

However, if the vast majority of people are unaware of or apathetic toward you, and the rest have a net negative opinion of you, it might not bode well for a Presidential campaign. 

Unless maybe you had enough of your own money to pay for a slick marketing campaign, and you were running against a bunch of bozos. 

You Just Don't Understand! (4.00 / 1)
People think great strides have been made, but they're wrong!

The top 1% have gained a considerable advantage since Ronald Reagan took office.  Their share of the national income has roughly doubled, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted early last year:

The top one percent of the population received 14.0 percent of the national after-tax income in 2004, nearly double its 7.5 percent share in 1979.

But that's nothing! After all, 86 percent of after-tax income remains in the hands of the bottom 99%! 

Think about it.  If the top 1% only gets one dollar out of every seven, it's hardly worth getting out of bed in the morning.  We've got to fix things, quick!  And clearly, only a billionaire can really understand their plight.

If the voters stand in the way, we'll just have to get creative, that's all.

Worked for George, didn't it?

He only needs five votes.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Don't Underestimate Bloomberg and his money. (4.00 / 1)
Polls at this point are meaningless.  Bloomberg bought two elections in New York City.  He paid something like $75 a vote.  He certainly could do it again.

He is dangerous and his message that the political parties are corrupt and that the country needs an 'apolitical' business executive has resonance.  The more people hear this the more they believe it.  At least New Yorkers fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Obviously he is not apolitical.  Besides being a hawk about the middle east, he is a free willing cannibal capitalist.  He will be a disaster.  So he is pro choice, big deal.  (I had an abortion, so I don't want to hear from any fems about being a chauvinist male).

His efforts must be monitored closely and we must be prepared to do battle.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

totally (0.00 / 0)
Chris i am surprised at the comfort you find in those polls. people have not been introduced to the multibillion dollar bloomberg media machine, and when they are you'll see him shoot right past the lackluster republican field. he is serious business.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
One more time--repeat after me: (4.00 / 1)
NYC is not USA.  Not even close.

Obviously he can't win, but I suppose the point is whether he could drain enough votes off in FL (or NY) to tip the race to the GOP.  Would that be his game plan?  Wouldn't seem to be the case.  Given that he can't win, what price vanity then becomes the question.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
he would be going for a win (0.00 / 0)
and he would do it by playing to the center, those being fiscal conservatives who want to run from the Xian crazy wing of the GOP and "Reagan Democrats". Aside from doing very well with fiscal conservatives and libertarians he would probably do especially well with white male Dems, especially if Hillary is nominated.

Giuliani is a psycho fascist and won handily in NYC. People tend to have a false impression of NYC as a liberal center. It  trends to be only socially liberal. Otherwise it trends fiscally conservative and is definitely closet racist.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
If it is obvious that he cannot win, he will not run. Asshole, yes--stupid, no. (0.00 / 0)

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

[ Parent ]
Why would he tip it GOP? (0.00 / 0)
If anything, my bet is he'd tip it towards us.  Given the amount of Republican dissatisfaction with their candidates, Bloomberg has the potential to pull voters away from McCain or Romney.  I think he'd be best against Huckabee.  He has the potential to compete for the fiscal/economic or security Republicans.  With the religious Republicans not particularly enthused by McCain or Romney, it could be very interesting.

[ Parent ]
Bloomberg - Broder and Unity (0.00 / 0)
We're really missing it here.

These polls really stand our world on its ear.

This means that David Broder, the pundit who always knows what the American people want, just plain missed this one.

Whatever could have happened on his last fact finding trip to Beaver Island where all the typical Americans hang out.

He must be heartbroken and hell, we're shocked, shocked, that the Broder, the Dean himself is wrong.

Bloomberg In NYC vs All Democrats (0.00 / 0)
"Update: Bloomberg would even lose New York City by more than 30 points against every Democrat."

I saw the same NYC poll.  In that poll he loses huge to every Democrat but does beat Rudy 9/11.


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox