Republican pollster Frank Luntz predicts New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg could win up to 25% of the vote if he runs as an Independent in 2008.

Could Bloomberg really capture one out of every four votes cast next year? That sounds high to me. And the comparisons to Perot in '92 strike me as a bit off as well. First, there's a lot of energy and enthusiasm on the Democratic side, so it's unlikely many Democrats would defect to vote Independent.

Second, while there is considerable dissatisfaction on the Republican side, it's hard to see how that sentiment accrues to Bloomberg given the current make up of the Republican field. In '92, Perot appealed to libertarian-leaning Republicans with his quirky - some would say nutty - personality, his strong support for the military and his clarion call for government reform and fiscal discipline.

This time around libertarian-leaning Republicans already have acceptable choices in Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, and social conservatives are the ones feeling like they're going to have to hold their noses. Obviously, if it does work out that the GOP nominates a conservative who doesn't possess broad party appeal, then the chances of a stronger Bloomberg bid probably rise.

But even if that happens, I just don't see libertarian-types running off to embrace a Bloomberg's late-blooming brand of Republicanism, which strikes me as the mushy, country-club variety. And despite his massive fortune, which is obviously a key asset, Bloomberg is neither iconoclastic nor charismatic enough to inspire a movement in the same way Perot did.

I do think there might be an opportunity for a third-party candidate to harness some of the current anxiousness, dissatisfaction, and public weariness with partisanship that exists today, I just don't think Michael Bloomberg is the person who can do it.