In his Wall Street Journal column yesterday James Taranto argued that former New York City Mayor (and present media billionaire) Michael Bloomberg a) can’t win the presidency; b) is very liberal by national standards; and c) could well tip the election to Trump in a Trump-Clinton-Bloomberg three-way presidential match.
If Davos and Aspen were states, Bloomberg would easily carry their six electoral votes. Could he carry, say, New York state? Maybe, but one can also imagine a scenario in which he makes it possible for Trump to do so with a plurality. That’s how Jim Buckley got to the Senate in 1970 and Al D’Amato a decade later.
The Bloomberg base usually votes Democratic in presidential elections, so that the result of an independent bid would be to fracture the Democratic coalition, putting blue states in play, while leaving the Republican coalition largely intact. Unless, of course, he were able to broaden his appeal somehow. But our sense of Bloomberg is that he has too much integrity (or, to put it less charitably, is too stubborn) to adjust his views on abortion, gun control and other hot buttons out of political expediency.
Given such a choice, I’d vote for Bloomberg. I guess I’m part of the problem.
Given such a choice, I’d vote for Bloomberg. I guess I’m part of the problem.
Well, a status quo vote for letting Wall Street own the US government certainly wouldn’t help.
…
But our sense of Bloomberg is that he has too much integrity (or, to put it less charitably, is too stubborn) to adjust his views on abortion, gun control and other hot buttons out of political expediency.
Only little people with tiny brains and no integrity would possibly argue with such a high-minded individual. And given that Bloomberg can buy and sell the likes of Trump, damned near everyone is a little person. He’s got, what, about ten people in the world he doesn’t look down upon from a height?