Presuming mayor Bloomberg has no interest in running for Mayor again (term limits are no obstacle when a billionaire is in the mix as he showed last time) he may be emboldened by his Chicago success, where unlimited money brought victory. If so emboldened, he may consider doing a Perot, and running as an Independent (there being no money in the world which would see him nominated by the Republicans) in 2016.
Could money, and frankly more credibility than Ross Perot ever had, see a Bloomberg presidency? If there is a financial collapse then a massively successful businessman with unlimited financial campaign resources would have a strong story to tell and anything is possible no matter how unlikely. But, at the current level of unemployment and the "time for a change" meme, Bloomberg could not win but could assist a genuine conservative to be elected.
If the GOP nominated a true conservative, which I expect to be the case, for instance Sarah Palin, then I would expect Bloomberg to run. The scenario is perfect for him-"eight wasted years of Democrat rule and we can't turn the clock back" etc-it writes itself. As long as the GOP nominated centrists like McCain and Romney, Bloomberg didn't make his move but 2016 is set up perfectly for him.
If this played out and Hillary was the Dem's nominee leftists heads would explode with the thought of their beloved in jeopardy and their Alinsky machine unable to operate against Bloomberg's billions.
According to this analysis the Bloomberg front groups, were testing the waters, structurally wise, back in 2010 . This, after a series of trial balloons, speculative media articles, and the usual coy denials.
Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post- A Beltway mainstay of there ever was one joined the trial balloon lift off. She named names and further tills the soil . People don't raise a million dollars for fun-this is serious business.
She concludes her column with this statement;
"All that's missing from a centrist movement that could be formidable is a leader....Anyone?"
I think that "anyone" except Bloomberg need not bother applying for this leadership position.
Certainly Bloomberg would, like Perot before him, have substantial financial resources to launch a viable third party campaign. Unlike Perot however, Bloomberg would not be seen as quirky. Looking objectively, Bloomberg would be a serious and respected candidate, whose business/financial, administrative skills are unquestioned. He could organize a support team of top flight professionals, and would be a skilled debater.
He is of course nobody's fool, and if he did run it would be because he saw a path to victory. Certainly no one could accuse him of running as a quixotic gesture, Rather, he would be viewed as running to advance a set of principles, especially gun control, and to block a conservative from being elected. Such a run could well see the exact opposite happen.
Map 1. shows what I believe Bloomberg's (represented on the map by "Undecided") maximum result might be-the result of which is ideal for Palin as a lead in the Electoral College imparts more of a mandate. Realistically he is not going to win the Republican states of the South and Midwest.
No candidate in this scenario has the required 270 electoral votes and the House of Representatives would decide the winner from amongst the top two candidates. A Republican House would of course choose Palin, over a Dem.
Map 2. Shows Bloomberg's worst case scenario. It denies the Dem candidate 270 electoral votes even he/she wins Florida, (Hard to pick because of the Jewish vote) with the House again choosing Palin.
Even if Bloomberg mounted a hugely successful campaign, and the economy was so poor that he won (Map 3) the rust belt states, plus Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, California-flights of fancy no doubt but, who knows? Teddy Roosevelt slaughtered Taft running as a Progressive in 1912 in his third party campaign. Palin would still be situated in first place in the electoral college with the House choosing her subsequently.
Personally speaking as a Manhattanite, I would not hesitate to vote for Bloomberg (splitting my vote for all the Republican candidates below president of course) in New York. In point of fact, if most Republicans, joined by PUMA's did that, Bloomberg would have a great chance of winning the state. My vote would, instead of being "wasted" go obliquely to helping Palin win-wonderful! And if voters similarly voted tactically in California, Connecticut and New Jersey-so much the better.
As has been shown on numerous occasions, the latest being the 2000 election where Bush lost the popular vote by half a million, the popular vote is of secondary importance.What happens in the electoral college, and possibly subsequently in the House is all that matters. Whether there is a "mandate" can be discussed by pundits for four years subsequent to the 2012 election. The Dem's were happy for Woodrow Wilson to win by a plurality of popular votes, so the have no cause for complaining about mandates.
"Run Mike Run". I look forward to having my vote count towards electing Palin by you winning New York. Whatever the election result the split in the GOP would be irreparable and a genuinely conservative republican party would be a permanaent fixture.
MAP 2
MAP 3
No comments:
Post a Comment