The Bloomberg View Why the former New York mayor may think he can win as a third-party presidential candidate. See note please
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bloomberg-view-1453678327
As a resident of New York I resent a billionaire who literally bought a third term despite term limits. After 9/11 when Giuliani suggested remaining on the job for a few months to complete the cleanup after the downing of the World Trade Center-Bloomberg ungraciously reminded Rudy that New York City had term limits ….What a hypocrite….rsk
You read it here last week. As the odds rise of extreme outcomes in the presidential election, so do the chances of a serious third-party candidate getting into the race, especially Michael Bloomberg. Now word has leaked that the former three-term mayor of New York is actively exploring the possibility.
Mr. Bloomberg considered a run in 2008 and 2012, only to conclude he couldn’t win, and that may be what happens this year too. The U.S. political system is tilted against third-party candidates, which is why the last one to take the White House was Abraham Lincoln in 1860 as the nominee of the antislavery Republicans.
Third-party candidates have made other notable runs but their influence has mainly been as spoilers or to force the major-party candidates to confront issues they’d ignored. Teddy Roosevelt ruined William Howard Taft’s chances for re-election in 1912, and Ross Perot contributed to George H.W. Bush’s defeat in 1992 though he won no electoral votes. He split the Reagan coalition by winning 19% of the vote and helped Bill Clinton win with only 43%.
ENLARGE We’ve been skeptical of a third-party Bloomberg candidacy in the past, but this year’s tumult has thrown convention out the window. Mr. Bloomberg is looking at the primary chaos and figuring he may have a chance if the parties nominate flawed or polarizing candidates who struggle to unite their parties.
The 73-year-old’s opening would widen on the left if the Democrats nominate avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. He’d probably not run if Hillary Clinton is nominated—unless she is wounded by an indictment or plea deal for having mishandled classified information. Mr. Bloomberg tilts left enough on guns, climate change and immigration that many Democrats would find him politically congenial. He’s more centrist on economics, and somewhat hawkish on foreign policy, but many Democrats would not find those views disqualifying amid 2% growth and the rise of Islamic State.
Mr. Bloomberg’s appeal is harder to discern on the political right, though that also depends on the GOP nominee. He has a stellar record reducing crime in New York and he fought the teachers union for school choice and accountability. He’s a social liberal loathed by the National Rifle Association and he has a nanny-state tendency (his failed big-soda ban) that irritates free-marketeers.
But if Republicans nominate Donald Trump, who is also no conservative, Mr. Bloomberg’s pitch would include his governing experience in New York and that he’s not a leap in the policy dark. He might also find a lane up the political middle if the GOP nominates Ted Cruz, whose belief that he can win merely with conservative voters means he could struggle in swing states like Iowa, Florida, Colorado and New Hampshire, among others.
As a self-financing billionaire, Mr. Bloomberg could get on the ballot and field a strong campaign in every state. He might do well enough in the polls to get into the autumn debates where he would compete on equal terms. That’s how Mr. Perot finished strong after he had previously dropped out of the race. Mr. Bloomberg could figure that many Republicans might find him more palatable as Commander in Chief than the say-anything style of Mr. Trump.
The big question is whether Mr. Bloomberg could win enough states to deny 270 electoral votes to the other candidates. That would throw the election to the House of Representatives, which would presumably still be controlled by Republicans, though you never know if the GOP presidential nominee trailed badly. Mr. Bloomberg would then have to make the case that he would be better for the country and the GOP than its nominee.
All of this would require events that almost never happen in American politics. But Mr. Bloomberg is a serious man who wouldn’t waste his money or time if he didn’t sense an opportunity. If we’ve learned anything so far in this tumultuous election season, it’s that the electorate is volatile enough that anything can happen.
Comments are closed.
