I wrote the article below in June
Once again a Bloomberg trial balloon;
*****************************************************
Respected Dem pollster Pat Caddell considered that if Hillary Clinton's campaign derailed in a major way it may "force Biden, Warren or even Kerry into the 2016 Dem field";
Once again a Bloomberg trial balloon;
"Michael Bloomberg considers third party run" 'Hill Talk'
is being floated and my analysis still stands in its basic outline. Bloomberg could deliver New York To Trump*****************************************************
Respected Dem pollster Pat Caddell considered that if Hillary Clinton's campaign derailed in a major way it may "force Biden, Warren or even Kerry into the 2016 Dem field";
"If
the Democratic smarties realize what I think they will in a few
months because I’ve looked at these things pretty carefully, and
they realize that she could be taking them down, and these things are
going to continue on, people are going to get in.”
Fred
Barnes writing at The
Weekly Standard sees trouble for Hillary as well with"The
Coming Democratic Panic"
"There’s
one more problem of Clinton’s doing: her mad dash to embrace the
left wing of the Democratic party. After being paid hundreds of
millions for speeches to Wall Street firms, she now says the very
wealthy in America must be “toppled.” She promises to legalize
more illegal immigrants than the five million Obama has. And so on.
Given all this, two more problems have dropped in the lap of Clinton’s campaign. One is the increased attention her Democratic opponents are getting. Democratic voters are suddenly interested in hearing their pitches. And former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg has popped up as a possible entrant in the Democratic race against Clinton."
The raising of former New York City Mayor, billionaire and possible presidential aspirant Mike Bloomberg's name is of particular interest. Not, in my opinion, because the former Democrat turned Republican turned Independent turned Democratic Party candidate financial backer has any chance whatsoever of getting the Democratic nomination, but because there is the possibility he might go Independent.
Kathleen Parker in November 28th 2010 wrote about the possibility of a centrist movement starting in reaction to the extreme partisanship then in play:
"Political outliers - not quite Republican, not quite Democrat - are forming new alliances in a communal search for "Home." Exhausted by extremism and aching for real change, more and more Americans are moving away from demagoguery and toward pragmatism.
Soon
they may have options. A new political group, No Labels
( www.nolabels.org ),
is hoping to mobilize and support a centrist political movement.
Led by Republican strategist Mark McKinnon and Democratic fundraiser Nancy Jacobson, the organization has raised more than $1 million so far - and the formal launch isn't until next month. Backers include Andrew Tisch, co-chair of Loews Corp.; Ron Shaich, founder of Panera Bread; and Dave Morin, a former Facebook executive."
Led by Republican strategist Mark McKinnon and Democratic fundraiser Nancy Jacobson, the organization has raised more than $1 million so far - and the formal launch isn't until next month. Backers include Andrew Tisch, co-chair of Loews Corp.; Ron Shaich, founder of Panera Bread; and Dave Morin, a former Facebook executive."
For a direct linkage of Bloomberg speculation (which goes back to, at least, October 2010, "The Committee to Draft Michael Bloomberg") just prior to Parker's item The New Yorker ran a major article in November 15th 2010-straight out, no frills "Bloomberg 2012?' which included this direct quote;
" Bloomberg said, “I think, actually, a third-party candidate could run the government easier than a partisan political President,” and then he went on, as he always does, to deny that he intends to pursue the position."
and this, perhaps Nostradamus like prediction from Democratic operative Joe Trippi "I would put the odds of an independent candidacy for President in 2012 or 2016 at probably sixty to seventy per cent,"
I wrote an article looking at the possibility of an Independent Bloomberg run in 2012 (he could of course never run as a Republican) with the premise that if he did run and Palin was the GOP nominee he could garner enough Electoral College votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives where Palin would be chosen.
That this scenario is hardly far-fetched is shown by a similar analysis in 'New York' magazine, to whit:
"Bloomberg’s grander ambitions were publicly revived by New York’s John Heilemann, in a cover story titled “2012: How Sarah Barracuda Becomes President.” The scenario, in short: Amid ongoing polarization and a stalled economic recovery, Bloomberg declares his candidacy, wins a handful of coastal states, thereby denying Obama the requisite electoral votes, and the Republican House awards the office to Palin."
I
reproduce below my original 2010 "Run
Mike Run" article which has been slightly updated to
allow for the changed Electoral College structure from 2012, and of
course I have changed "Obama" to "Hillary." It is a
perfectly valid overview and simply waits on events which, as
Caddel and Barnes both indicate may well be under way.
Bloomberg is perfectly capable, especially financially, of mounting a massive campaign run and, unlike Perot, could well win substantial Electoral College votes. I stated "Run Mike Run" in 2010 and, if the scenario below comes to pass would simply update it to "Run Mike Run In 2016"
Bloomberg is perfectly capable, especially financially, of mounting a massive campaign run and, unlike Perot, could well win substantial Electoral College votes. I stated "Run Mike Run" in 2010 and, if the scenario below comes to pass would simply update it to "Run Mike Run In 2016"
**************************************************************************
Run Mike Run!
According to this analysis the wolves and the buzzards are starting to circle around President Obama's 2012 (Hillary's 2016) re-election run. The Bloomberg front groups, smelling blood, are testing the waters, structural wise, it can be deduced. 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-has joined the trial balloon lift off. She names names and further tills the soil for the forthcoming launch. 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, or simply as a spoiler. Rather, he would be viewed as running to advance a set of principles.
If such a person, with such principles and resources ran, it would be a massive threat to (Hillary), and condemnation of, Obama and his administration. It would be a Kennedy versus Carter campaign all over again, but this time throughout the general election campaign itself.
What are the implications for a Palin run from this scenario? They are nothing but positive. Map 1. (below) shows a possible result of a straightforward Obama (Hillary) versus Palin campaign. It shows, based on the 2004 (2012) result and the new Electoral College numbers factoring in population drift, a Palin victory by two (twelve) electoral votes.
Map 2. shows what I believe Bloomberg's maximum result might be. 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 Obama (Hillary).
Map 3. Shows Bloomberg's possibly worst case scenario, the result of which is ideal for Palin. It denies Obama (Hillary) 270 electoral votes even if (she) he wins Virginia, and puts (her) him in second place with the House again choosing Palin.
Even if Bloomberg mounted a hugely successful campaign and the economy was so poor that he won the rust belt states, plus Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, 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 which no Republican can win. 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 2016 election. The Dem's were happy for Woodrow Wilson to win by a plurality of popular votes, so they 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 and Florida.
MAP 1
According to this analysis the wolves and the buzzards are starting to circle around President Obama's 2012 (Hillary's 2016) re-election run. The Bloomberg front groups, smelling blood, are testing the waters, structural wise, it can be deduced. 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-has joined the trial balloon lift off. She names names and further tills the soil for the forthcoming launch. 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, or simply as a spoiler. Rather, he would be viewed as running to advance a set of principles.
If such a person, with such principles and resources ran, it would be a massive threat to (Hillary), and condemnation of, Obama and his administration. It would be a Kennedy versus Carter campaign all over again, but this time throughout the general election campaign itself.
What are the implications for a Palin run from this scenario? They are nothing but positive. Map 1. (below) shows a possible result of a straightforward Obama (Hillary) versus Palin campaign. It shows, based on the 2004 (2012) result and the new Electoral College numbers factoring in population drift, a Palin victory by two (twelve) electoral votes.
Map 2. shows what I believe Bloomberg's maximum result might be. 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 Obama (Hillary).
Map 3. Shows Bloomberg's possibly worst case scenario, the result of which is ideal for Palin. It denies Obama (Hillary) 270 electoral votes even if (she) he wins Virginia, and puts (her) him in second place with the House again choosing Palin.
Even if Bloomberg mounted a hugely successful campaign and the economy was so poor that he won the rust belt states, plus Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, 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 which no Republican can win. 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 2016 election. The Dem's were happy for Woodrow Wilson to win by a plurality of popular votes, so they 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 and Florida.
MAP 1
MAP 2
MAP 3
