Saturday, January 23, 2016

If Bloomberg Runs-Who Wins Trump Or Hillary? (Hint "Run Mike Run")

UPDATE 2. (Bloomberg run inevitable)
"Bloomberg says he is eyeing 2016 run"

Ezra Klein's "Vox"  attacks A Bloomberg 3rd party run. No surer sign that it would hurt Hillary more than Trump. See also

Donald Trump Would ‘Love’ to See Michael Bloomberg Run

Update#2. Second attack on Bloomberg this time from the right proves the establishment is trying to stop him as he hurts Hillary more than Trump.

UPDATE #3 This is getting surreal. Anthony Weiner and Jeb Bush make supprotive noises for Bloomberg,

Disgraced Weiner Says Bloomberg Could Win The White House

Jeb Bush: Michael Bloomberg A ‘Good Man’ And A ’Patriot


Bloomberg trial balloon has Republicans laughing

The latest Bloomberg run speculation'

 LINK >New York Times 1/23/16

Bloomberg, Sensing an Opening, Revisits a Potential White House Run

  At Hot Air

New Morning Consult national poll


The only way this horrible campaign can end for conservative anti-Trumpers, I think, is with a third-party candidacy that’s even more irritating than Trump’s is. It’d be like a twist at the end of an especially creepy Twilight Zone episode, where a guy sells his soul to the devil for another choice besides Trump and Hillary — and it turns out to be Mike Bloomberg. “Submitted for your approval: A man who’ll never drink more than 12 ounces of soda in one sitting again. A lesson in being careful what you wish for … in the Twilight Zone.”
Since Bloomberg himself reportedly commissioned a poll along these lines not long ago, let’s take these numbers semi-seriously.
The million-dollar (well, billion-dollar) question: Who does Bloomberg hurt more? As it turns out, Hillary. Without him in the race, Hillary narrowly leads Trump, 44/42. Even better news for Trump fans is that Trump does better against Hillary in a three-way race than either Cruz or Rubio does. Against Cruz, Hillary leads 38/34/11; against Rubio, it’s 38/33/10. That’s partly a function of the fact that Cruz and Rubio are lesser known to Americans than Trump is, but if you’re looking for evidence that he’ll give her a tougher race by bringing in heterodox Democrats and independents than a more dogmatic right-winger will, there you go.
That said, this is a surprisingly encouraging poll for Bloomy. Don’t be daunted by the fact that he’s nearly 25 points behind. He’s already in double digits without having spent a penny promoting himself, and both Trump and Hillary are north of 50 percent on unfavorability. Bloomberg’s overall favorable rating is 30/26, which leaves plenty of room to grow. (In fact, he’s +13 among Democrats compared to -9 among Republicans, further proof that he’s a bigger threat to Hillary than to Trump.) If he spent $250 million in ads, say, to introduce himself to American voters, how long would it be before he’s polling above 20 percent with Trump and Hillary each in the low 30s? That’s what political junkies would call “striking distance.” He’s played this game successfully before too on a smaller scale. In 2001, as a political novice and newly minted Republican, he dropped $50 million in Democratic New York City to become mayor in an upset. Eight years later, with his poll numbers sagging, he spent $102 million to narrowly secure reelection as an independent. Trump has been oddly reluctant to dig deep into his wallet to destroy the opposition. Bloomberg wouldn’t be. The question, really, is whether there’s any chance that he could end up with the most electoral votes in a three-way race. The big blue states will go for Hillary — with the possible exception of New York. The big red ones will go for Trump. Are there enough purples to give Bloomberg a lead?
Read the rest including Romney speculation in the mix at LINK
I wrote the article below in June
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 ( ), 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."

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"

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