Reader on a potential Bloomberg candidacy, following up on what I wrote earlier.

I am from New Jersey, where Mike Bloomberg is well known. Although my information is not a scientific sample by any means, the people who seem most interested in his candidacy are male Democrats who dislike Hillary Clinton intensely, but are resistant to pulling the lever for a Republican.

Luntz is usually right-on with his analysis, but I have to disagree with him here. Moderate Republicans will have problems voting for Bloomberg, since the GOP-leaners most likely to defect to a socially liberal candidate are fiscal conservatives. Bloomberg's 2002 tax hikes will keep these voters in the GOP column. NYC's current surplus will not be tremendously persuasive to these voters, since most view surpluses as a sign that the government is keeping the tax rates artificially high. Simply put, few Bush voters will move to Bloomberg in '08. He hurts Democrats.

There is also this talk of Bloomberg "relishing" the opportunity to defeat Giuliani. The problem is, Giuliani's nomination voids the rationale for a Bloomberg candidacy altogether. Will the electorate be clamoring for another strong, socially liberal NYC mayor to enter the race? On the contrary, if Giuliani is the nominee, there is only enough oxygen for one third-party candidate, who would be a pro-life conservative, and no threat to win the White House. Bloomberg's viability only arises from (1) a polarizing, social conservative GOP nominee; or (2) both parties' nominations of candidates with no executive experience.

I think the emailer makes some good points. And I think the point about Giuliani is particularly true. It is hard to imagine how a serious Bloomberg run, with Giuliani as the Republican nominee, would do anything except deliver the White House to the GOP.