John Lumea

Doctoroff, Bloomberg & Americans Elect: The Plot Thickens

From the National Draft Committee for Mike Bloomberg page at AmericansElect.org

Last Thursday, I offered some speculation that — despite his frequent protestations to the contrary —
the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, might actually be getting a little bit more serious about testing the waters for a presidential run in 2012.

Bloomberg and his associates long had expressed interest in the possibility of using Americans Elect
as a vehicle for such a run. And there was plenty of evidence to suggest that the feeling was mutual.

Now, an attorney and former journalist named Andrew Doctoroff had just published, within the last four weeks, three pieces arguing for the necessity and viability of
an independent presidential candidacy in 2012.

The thing is, Doctoroff's brother, Daniel, was
Bloomberg's deputy mayor from 2001 to 2007,
before joining Bloomberg LP, where he now serves
as President and CEO.

Indeed, in the longest of Doctoroff's three pieces — a 40-page research paper (pdf) titled "An Assessment of the Viability of an Independent Presidential Candidacy in 2012" — Doctoroff, who never mentioned Bloomberg by name, painted a portrait of the ideal independent candidate that looked an awful lot like, well, Michael Bloomberg.

And Doctoroff's sudden spate of electoral analysis
got its first airing on the Web site of — yep —
Americans Elect.

Might there be something to all this?

 

:: :: ::

 

DANA RUBINSTEIN of Capital — the "online news publication about how things work in New York,"
founded in 2010 by Josh Benson and Tom McGeveran, two veterans of the New York Observer — decided to
call Andrew Doctoroff, to try to find out. She's up with a new piece that details the results of her conversation.

According to Doctoroff, his published analysis involved "no coordination with Bloomberg’s folks at all" — and, unless and until there's evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to doubt that.

But, in the end, Doctoroff did "sing" to Rubinstein the finale that was waiting in the wings of all of his published pieces: "I wish [Bloomberg] would" run. Shortly, I will come to one reason why Doctoroff's saying this is quite problematic.

But certainly — surely — it would be disingenuous of Doctoroff to suggest that he didn't didn't have Bloomberg in mind while writing a paper that lays out this fairly specific personal financial benchmark for the success
of an independent presidential candidate in 2012:

In 2012, if the political climate does not
change significantly in the months ahead,
an independent candidate should be able to eclipse the performance of Perot, garnering a significantly higher percentage of the popular vote. Obviously, this assessment also assumes that an independent candidate would be able to spend on his or her campaign an amount of money (adjusted for inflation) comparable to what Perot spent in 1992, i.e., $73 million.

Adjusted for inflation, Perot's personal spend
would be something on the order of $120 million in
2012. There are exceedingly few people mentioned as prospective (Americans Elect) independent candidates whose net-worth ceilings are high enough to provide for that kind of outlay. Does Jon Huntsman have a spare $120 million? Christie Whitman? I don't know. But what everybody — including Doctoroff — does know is that Mike Bloomberg has the cash.

 

:: :: ::

 

I ALSO still contend that Doctoroff would not have financed and produced a 40-page research paper — including enlisting the aid of a University of Michigan doctoral student — without the reasonable guarantee that his work would find an influential audience.

Doctoroff told Rubinstein:

I didn't have any prior relationship with Americans Elect. None. I learned about it
from a Thomas Friedman column months ago. Then, when I was at a family reunion over Thanksgiving in Boston, and I was expressing consternation about our two-party system, my cousin said he knew [Americans Elect CEO] Kahlil Byrd....I said I was interested in what Americans Elect is trying to do. My cousin
(who lives in the Boston area), at my request, was nice enough to introduce Kahlil and me
via e-mail.

Doctoroff also told Rubinstein: "After I showed
Americans Elect my research paper in January, Americans Elect asked me to serve on its Board of Advisors, and I have agreed to do so."

Remember that the link to Doctoroff's research paper first was published on the Americans Elect Web site. My guess is that Doctoroff's decision to produce the paper grew out of his conversation with Americans
Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd — that, in effect, Americans
Elect commissioned Doctoroff's paper, even if they
didn't fund it.

Is Doctoroff's paper now part of the packet of briefing materials that Americans Elect is using to try to recruit candidates? Almost certainly.

Did Americans Elect offer Doctoroff a spot on its Board
of Advisors, in part, to say thanks for this contribution? Probably.

Does Americans Elect's effort to expand its resources
to include both Doctoroff's paper and Doctoroff himself also have specifically to do with its desire to make
a stronger case to Michael Bloomberg — one of the people Americans Elect most would like to recruit as
a candidate? Possibly.

 

:: :: ::

 

IT'S especially telling that Doctoroff did not disclose to Rubinstein his personal connections to Americans Elect — including his position on the Board of Advisors — until after she pressed for the information in a follow-up email.

In fact, it's Doctoroff's new position at Americans Elect that now should make his personal public advocacy of a Bloomberg candidacy problematic.

According to Americans Elect's By-Laws, both Directors and Officers "shall not communicate or act in favor of
or in opposition to any candidate for President or Vice President at any time before the adjournment of the online nominating convention of Americans Elect."

According to the group's Rules: "Until the Americans Elect ticket has been selected by majority vote of participating Delegates in the Nominating Round of voting, Americans Elect shall be neutral with respect to all Candidates and shall not endorse, oppose, advance,
or advocate any particular Candidate."

In other words: With his comments favoring a Bloomberg run, Doctoroff is in violation of American's Elect's stated policy on neutrality.

Alas, this policy has not kept several others at Americans Elect from making their personal preferences public.

But that is a matter for another post (soon).

Bloomberg Preparing to Come Out (As a Presidential Candidate)?

Douglas Schoen, paid advisor to both Michael Bloomberg and Americans Elect

[My follow-up to this piece is here. — JL]

The groups No Labels and Americans Elect will tell you that they simply are pragmatists and nonpartisans
who are trying to return the country to a politics of moderation and common sense.

In fact, the brand of fiscally conservative "centrism" — which is to say, center-right-ism — that these groups
are advancing, whether in public or behind the scenes,
is every bit as partisan and every bit as ideological as the "extremes" of "left" and "right" from which they claim to want to rescue the republic.

As it happens, there are are many connections between Americans Elect and No Labels. These connections
rarely come into sharper focus than when seen through the lens of informed speculation about New York mayor Michael Bloomberg's presidential intentions. And no one has been more thorough and persuasive in digging out and documenting these connections than the investigative journalist Jim Cook of Irregular Times.

Go to Irregular Times and read, in chronological order, everything that comes up under dedicated searches for "Americans Elect," "No Labels," and "Michael Bloomberg." You might find the exercise illuminating.

Yes, That Doctoroff

To all the "dots" that Jim Cook already has connected,
I offer the following for consideration.

On 31 January, Huffington Post published a piece by Andrew Doctoroff, "Why An Independent Presidential Candidate Can Succeed in 2012." Doctoroff identified himself as a "former journalist" and a "Detroit lawyer."

What Doctoroff didn't mention — either in his piece or
in his bio — is that his brother, Daniel Doctoroff, was Michael Bloomberg's deputy mayor from 2001 through 2007, or that Daniel Doctoroff left the Bloomberg administration to become President of Bloomberg LP
and now serves as the company's President and CEO.

What Doctoroff also didn't mention is that his piece originally was published five days earlier, as a "guest piece" on the Americans Elect Web site.

Bloomberg and Americans Elect

The truth is, observers long have sensed that Americans Elect was a stalking horse for a Bloomberg presidential candidacy in 2012. As Jim Cook reported in November 2010 (sources linked in the original):

New York Magazine's John Heilemann spoke to Michael Bloomberg aide Kevin Sheekey in October and reports that the New York City mayor's office has strong interest in using an Americans Elect presidential ballot line to run for President in 2012:

"One key factor, now as three years ago, is Bloomberg's ability to get onto the ballot nationwide. Thus are Sheekey and others eagerly monitoring a new outfit called Americans Elect, which plans to launch early next year. Backed by a wealthy private investor, Peter Ackerman, the group says...that it intends to hold a web-based convention to nominate a 'balanced presidential ticket that will bridge the vital center of American public opinion' and place
it 'on the ballot in all 50 states.' Ackerman has
already put $1.55 million into the project, with
more to come."

Americans Elect is in fact backed solely by Peter Ackerman's contributions of
$1.55 million in the second and third
quarters of 2010. Moreover, a dance between Bloomberg and Americans Elect would not be new. Americans Elect is, after all, the new incarnation of Unity08 — the two groups shared the same business address for a time. Before that, Unity08 shared its business address with the Draft Bloomberg Committee. Indeed, the founders of Unity08 registered the domain name draftmichaelbloomberg [dot] com in June 2007, at a time when Unity08 was insisting that it had no candidates in mind, that the people would choose, and also at a time when Unity08 leaders were holding secret talks with the Bloomberg camp.

Many of the senior leaders of Unity08 have moved on, or at least are not publicly involved with Americans Elect at this point. One senior Unity08 leader has remained: Peter Ackerman, co-chair of the Unity08 rules committee from the beginning, member of the Unity08 Board
of Directors, member of the Unity08 Advisory Committee and now Chairman of the Board
and sole funder of Americans Elect.

Telegraphing Intent?

On 8 February, Doctoroff was up on Huffington Post with a second piece — this time, "propping" Americans Elect by name — and, once again, Americans Elect flagged Doctoroff's opinion on its "feed."

Interesting, given Doctoroff's excoriation of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, and his call specifically for a presidential candidate who is a registered "independent" (or who, at least, would not be running as a traditional party nominee) — i.e., his call for someone like, say, Michael Bloomberg — that both of the two prospects that Doctoroff name-checks, Mitch Daniels and Kent Conrad, are strongly identified with one of the two "major" parties.

A diversion? A cover? A VP shortlist? Any — or all — of these seem possible.

The move of Doctoroff's, however, that may be the
best "candidate" for further investigation is his quiet insertion of this 40-page research paper (pdf) —
"An Assessment of the Viability of an Independent Presidential Candidacy in 2012." The paper is credited to Doctoroff, who links to the paper in both of his two pieces arguing for "an independent presidential candidate" and cites it as the basis for the first of these. Although the paper is undated, it includes late-January polling data,
so it was completed within the last few weeks.

According to the paper's first footnote, "[m]uch of
the research for this paper was conducted by Ashley Jardina, a doctoral graduate student in the University
of Michigan's Department of Political Science" — and, indeed, at least in terms of presentation, this is a
serious piece of research.

Which begs the question: Who commissioned this paper? A "draft Bloomberg" group? Bloomberg's consultant, Douglas Schoen? — who, perhaps not coincidentally, is listed as part of the "Leadership" of Americans Elect. Bloomberg himself?

Certainly, analysis of this length and substance is not typically the sort of thing that a person or group does for their health. More often, there is money involved — or, at the very least, the guarantee of a "high-end" readership.

No, there is nothing accidental about the release of
this paper, which, I surmise, was written specifically
(1) to persuade Michael Bloomberg that now is the time to run for President, and (2) to persuade existing and potential Bloomberg supporters that now is the time to vote for him.

Moreover: Unless Daniel Doctoff's brother, Andrew,
is going a bit rogue, it seems highly unlikely that this paper, which makes an unequivocal case for the viability of an independent presidential candidacy in 2012,
would have been made public — and made public by
the brother of the person, Daniel Doctoroff, who was Bloomberg's longtime deputy mayor and who now is
the President and CEO of Bloomberg LP — without the independent Michael Bloomberg's explicit approval.

To be fair, the paper is very careful not to mention Bloomberg by name. But, if you have any doubt that Bloomberg is the unmistakable subtext, note that the paper's persistent frame of reference — and favorable benchmark — is the experience of another billionaire independent, Ross Perot, in 1992:

[T]he 1992 election teaches one lesson above all: an independent presidential candidate
who spends large sums of money on his
or her campaign has the potential to win significant electoral support....[I]n 1992,
Ross Perot captured 18.9% of the popular
vote. In 2012, if the political climate does
not change significantly in the months ahead, an independent candidate should be able to eclipse the performance of Perot, garnering a significantly higher percentage of the popular vote. Obviously, this assessment also assumes that an independent candidate would be able
to spend on his or her campaign an amount
of money (adjusted for inflation) comparable
to what Perot spent in 1992, i.e., $73 million. But money may be the only hurdle that would prevent an attractive candidate from sprinting unimpeded to a historic finish on Election Day.

Michael Bloomberg is not yet saying yes to a presidential run in 2012 — but, for those who are listening, he might just have started thinking it a lot louder.