The new year’s most intriguing political development is the news that former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is quietly exploring the possibility of entering the Presidential race as an independent.
Bloomberg has always wanted to be President — along with Dick Cheney, he likes the idea of the office but hates the self-abasement required to get there — and you can’t blame him for considering a run just about now. To Bloomberg, who is difficult to pigeonhole on the rigid political spectrum of our day, the race for the Republican nomination is devolving into a mean-spirited circus, and two scary clowns are currently leading the pack. Should Bernie Sanders win the Democratic nomination, Bloomberg would probably despair over the prospect of even more intractable gridlock than we have now. In a worst-case scenario — say, Sanders against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz — Bloomberg would see more than an opportunity: from his point of view, it might be closer to a necessity. But he can’t wait for clarity: he has to push the button long before the two nominees are chosen. Plus, Michael Bloomberg doesn’t like to lose.
Serious third-party Presidential candidacies in my lifetime have all had unintended consequences. The two most notorious were Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000. Both men siphoned away votes from a major party’s natural constituency, thus helping to elect the opposition: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. But who might benefit and who might suffer from a Bloomberg-led ticket? It’s far less evident.
On the one hand, he’s a fat-cat multibillionaire (he’s way richer than Trump, and he got that way without a seven-figure loan from his father; he could easily self-finance a national campaign) with “New York values,” meaning, I guess, moderate positions on gun control, immigration, abortion, climate change and the like. A perfect target for Citizen Cruz. Then again, he has used the power of government as mayor to ban smoking in shared public spaces, an idea which has caught on as far away as Dublin, and he was just starting to pose ways to reduce the consumption of sugary sodas when the clock ran out. Those pesky nanny-state regulations, which successful businesspeople are supposed to hate. Bloomberg was also a welcome voice of reason during the trumped-up kerfuffle over the “Ground Zero mosque.” A few people carped about his making New York especially better for the especially better off, but he’s generally remembered as an effective mayor: he made other moderates like himself fairly pleased with his ideas and his courage.
There are plenty of Democrats who would vote for Bloomberg in a general election, especially if their party chose Bernie Sanders. It’s not that they don’t like the Bern, they just recognize that the good ideas he’s campaigning on would be impossible to enact without the kind of compromises that would wind up displeasing the Senator. Yes, what’s missing is the art of the deal. The good thing for Bloomberg is that Sanders has pretty much nullified any latent anti-Semitism: its not going to be an issue. You have to be some kind of king-hell bigot in this day and age to object to a candidate just because he’s Jewish, and those few serious knuckle-draggers vote Republican anyway.
Bloomberg has said that if Hillary Clinton were nominated, he’d be less inclined to run, and I can see that. Outside of a sitting veep, she is the best-qualified Presidential candidate in memory. Her views dovetail with Blooomberg’s reality-based pragmatism more neatly. She seems to understand how the federal government really operates, and knows where to push and prod. And she makes those scary clowns froth at the mouth.
If he had a crystal ball, Bloomberg’s decision would be easy. He made his fortune by predicting the future, correctly sensing a potential lucrative symbiosis between the financial markets and emerging power and speed in data processing at a time when his learned bosses and colleagues at Salomon Brothers thought he was nuts. But now he can’t. If he wants in, he has to act by early March. That would still give him time to get his name on the ballot in all fifty states, and the very first thing an independent candidate needs, even beyond a vast pile of money, is a ballot with his name on it. He won’t have time to analyze his chances in all but a few early-primary states. The GOP nomination, maybe both, could still be up in the air when summer rolls around. But you can bet his people are carefully studying the likely scenarios, because Michael Bloomberg wouldn’t be running to make a statement. He’d be running to win.
Statewide and national politicians depend on sugar daddies more than ever before. We all know that a few immensely wealthy donors have outsized influence over modern campaigns. Not necessarily by flooding the tube with commercials — that gets less and less effective each presidential cycle (hi, Jeb!) — but one sole megadonor like the Kochs or Sheldon Adelson or Cruz’s Robert Mercer can keep a campaign afloat and the staffers paid even after popular support has dwindled: look how Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum hobbled into oblivion way past their sell-by dates last time. Now we have self-funding candidates, and lots of them. Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman were unable to parlay a wad into an office, but it’s not at all unusual to read that a newly elected governor was his own largest donor.
Trump’s big hook is that he’s so rich, no “special interest” can tell him what to do. Should he enter the race, Bloomberg could handily, er, trump this notion. But he has to jump in before anybody is nominated, and his independent candidacy could suck moderate votes from potential nominees Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Jeb!, Kasich. When you share such votes, you just might give an advantage to the fiery id of the political zealot, and hello, President Cruz. And if you divide electoral votes three ways, you might not even get a clear winner at all — throwing the 2016 Presidential election to the ineffable wisdom of that distinguished body, the United States House of Representatives.