THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  It's been rumored for some time that former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg might run for president.  Now Bloomberg has publicly confirmed that he might indeed. 

This story is very important.  Third-party or independent candidates can shake up a race, or even determine it, by taking votes away from one of the major-party candidates.  In 1992 Ross Perot did exactly that when he got 19% of the vote, most of it coming from President H.W. Bush.  This allowed Bill Clinton to become president with only 43% of the popular vote.

From CNN:

(CNN) Michael Bloomberg says he is considering running for president of the United States, a move that would dramatically shake up an already chaotic 2016 race.

In an interview with Financial Times, the media mogul and former New York City mayor said he was "looking at all the options" when asked about a possible bid.

"I'm listening to what candidates are saying and what the primary voters appear to be doing," Bloomberg said, adding that he would need to add his name on ballots by early March in order to stage a serious campaign.

The billionaire also issued his most damning indictment of the current campaigns to date.

"I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," Bloomberg told the Financial Times, adding that the public deserved "a lot better."

Bloomberg's interview, which marks the first time the billionaire has confirmed that he is eyeing a presidential bid, took place in London and focused primarily on financial sustainability, a source with knowledge of the interview told CNN.

It wasn't until the end of the interview that the reporter, Oliver Ralph, asked the former mayor if he was considering running for president.

"What Bloomberg told (the Financial Times) is what he's been saying privately for weeks," the source said.

The New York Times reported last month that he was considering a plan to run as an independent because he was troubled by Donald Trump's success on the Republican side, and Hillary Clinton's inability to stanch Bernie Sanders' growth on the Democratic side.

COMMENT:  The key point here:  Bloomberg, a multi-billionaire, could finance his own campaign.  No need to go on a fundraising tour.

Also, he's been mayor of New York, often called "the second toughest job in America."  He was a solid, if unexciting mayor.  He comes off as a decent, well-behaved man.

Could he actually win a presidential election?  Look, you never know.  Ross Perot was a terrible candidate, an eccentric who never really could explain what he'd do as president.  Bloomberg would be much better, but he has some policy positions that would be serious problems.  First, he's a passionate advocate of gun control.  Second, he had a kind of nanny-state approach to governing New York City, going on campaigns to bar oversized soft drinks, for example.  Third, he's a New Yorker, and there are still some in the country who have a prejudiced view of New York. 

Bloomberg would need at least a third of the popular vote to win.  But we decide our presidents by electoral vote, and I wonder how many states he could carry.  You may be certain he's polling on that right now.

Pundits point out that most Americans know little, if anything, about Bloomberg.  But his campaign's vast financial resources could flood the airways with getting-to-know-him ads.

Win?  No one can predict.  But shake up the race?  Definitely.  And the excitement factor would grow. 

February 9, 2016