Speculation is rampant. The body politic is intrigued by the possibility of an independent presidential campaign by Mayor Bloomberg. It is thought that he will only run if he perceives a real possibility of success. Can the mayor win, or at least generate enough leverage to influence the next president?

Mr. Bloomberg has some advantages. He offers good management skills in an age of governmental incompetence. He rejects political histrionics. Pragmatically, he can personally finance the most expensive campaign in history and not owe anything to any special interest. There is talk of about a half a billion dollar campaign for Mr. Bloomberg, which would allow him to beam his message everywhere. But, what is the message?

Cognizant of the need to learn from history, speculators turn to the most recent analogy, Ross Perot’s campaign in 1992. But they have not evaluated the Perot experience properly. He self-financed his entire campaign, just as Mr. Bloomberg will do. He got into the national televised debates, but he did not win one delegate, although he received an impressive 19% of the popular vote. That is the conventional analysis, but it is all wrong. It ignores the dicey details.

A valid analogy must rely on two salient factors of Mr. Perot’s 1992 campaign. One augers well for Mr. Bloomberg and the other does not. I know. I was the chairman of Mr. Perot’s New York campaign until he quit on July 17, when he betrayed all of the enthusiastic volunteers who had invested their time and energy in his cause.

Four months prior, he announced that if we did the hard work to put him on the ballot in all 50 states he would run. He broke his promise and disappointed thousands of well-intended and energetic followers. Mr. Perot’s surprise withdrawal on July 17, 1992, came a day after Bill Clinton’s nomination as the Democratic candidate.

When the last polls were taken just before that nomination, Mr. Perot was very close to President Bush and Governor Clinton. Other polls showed Mr. Perot in the lead. The June New York Times poll showed that 23% of Americans favored Mr. Perot, 38% favored President Bush, and 28% favored Governor Clinton. Mr. Perot led the polls in California. There is good reason to conclude that had Mr. Perot not withdrawn and lost a significant portion of his people, and had he listened to the professionals he recruited, there was evidence of a real possibility for a third party win. Evaluating his potential based on the 19% he garnered in November while his negatives were rising is misleading. The real lesson of Perot 1992 is based on his standing in June. Mr. Perot’s springtime popularity primarily was generated by one big peacetime issue — the disgraceful deficit that was wisely perceived as a heavy burden on future generations. Enough people appreciated its importance in the context of other needed governmental reforms that Mr. Perot advocated to reduce the influence of special interests. His promise generated genuine enthusiasm. In addition, Mr. Perot’s unique style, his plain-spoken country boy charm, and apparent sincerity were all well received by many people. He quickly built a following among those who saw him on television, liked what they heard, and the straight forward way in which he spoke.

Mr. Bloomberg has not developed yet an overriding issue to entice people across party lines. Although he has the record and qualifications to do so. Nor has any sort of charisma appeared yet. Maybe the lack of it will be perceived as evidence of integrity. The big question is: can a well-run Mike Bloomberg for president campaign address these important factors with the infusion of massive amounts of money?

It is certainly possible. Mr. Bloomberg has much to offer. He exudes quiet confidence. No special interests can get to him unfairly. He is a proven bipartisan who deplores political bickering. His job as mayor is bigger than that of 39 state governors, including each of those who are now running for president. He commands a police force of 40,000 men and women complete with helicopters, ships, and a worldwide intelligence network. He mingles with diplomats from all over the world.

His qualifications obviously exceed those offered by Mr. Perot in 1992 and those of the last two American presidents who were governors when they were first elected.

Mr. Lifflander, a lawyer, directed Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential campaign in New York until July of that year. He has managed several statewide campaigns for Democrats.