The Question Mark Next to Bloomberg's Name

How do you solve a problem like Mike Bloomberg? That is to say, how do newspapers label a candidate like Mike Bloomberg? In light of last week's Quinnipiac University poll -- in which being called "a Republican and an Independent" dropped the mayor's lead from 22 points to 10 -- the answer matters a great deal.

Because though Bloomberg notably changed his registration from Republican to Independent in 2007, he is currently the candidate of both the city's Republican and Independence parties. So, should newspapers I.D. Bloomberg as "an independent," as his campaign would like? Couldn't his opponents argue that he ought to be labeled "Bloomberg, Republican-Independent?" Or, to compromise, "Independent-Republican?" Who decides what is fair?

It's not clear.

Take the example of John Lindsay. By July of 1965, Lindsay had a lock on both the Republican and Liberal Party nominations for mayor. Newspapers summarily began referring to him as the "Republican-Liberal" candidate in the race. No one has ever explained why, exactly. Here are a few of the possible explanations.

1. Lindsay was a registered member of the Republican Party. Hence, this affiliation received top billing.

2. The party with more members leads the label. The Liberals were a force in New York City politics, but their roll never even came close to matching the GOP's. That some affiliations were so insignificant as to barely ever warrant a mention also bolsters the case for I.D.-ing by size. Lindsay's third backer was the Independent Citizens party (an organization his campaign founded specifically for voters who wouldn't pull the Republican or Liberal levers). Yet the papers never referred to him as the "Republican-Liberal-Independent Citizens" nominee.

3. Habit. While running for mayor, Lindsay was serving in Congress, an office he won as a Republican four times over. Newspapers had been identifying him as a Republican for the eight years leading up to his '65 campaign.

4. The papers deferred to the candidate. It seems Lindsay never asked to be called by anything other than the "Republican-Liberal" label.

Either for or against him, any political operative worth his salt should be angling editors on how Bloomberg is addressed. Of course, Bloomberg has an option Lindsay didn't have: he could insist on being called 'Mayor' with no party at all.

Follow John R. Bohrer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JRBwrites

Comments

[bw2nyc]

Michael Bloomberg. Lets see. Endorsed George Bush for President in 2004 by giving a speech to the Republican National Convention, Was on McCain’s short list to be the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, and didn’t endorse Obama for President. Is Bloomberg a Democrat? Absolutely not. Liberal? Absolutely not. Should Democrats and liberals support Mike Bloomberg for Mayor? Absolutely not. I am supporting Bill Thompson because I believe Bill unlike Mike will always support whats best for all of New York, not just what's best for the privileged few. Bill has been NYC Comptroller for the past eight years and before that president of the Board of Education. To learn more about Bill visit thompson2009.com

[Bill Cunningham - Huffpost Blogger]

In 1976, US Senator James Buckley was referred to in the NY Times as the Conservati­ve-Republi­can candidate in his losing re-election race against Pat Moynihan. Buckley had, of course, won the seat as a Conservative in a 3 way contest in 1970, defeating Republican Senator Charles Goodell (appointed by the Governor to fill the unexpired term of Robert F. Kennedy) and Richard Ottinger, the Democrat.

[John R. Bohrer - Huffpost Blogger]

Great point. Buckley was also a registered Republican, which makes the choice of label all the more interesting.