To this observer, a potential candidacy by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg could bring more chaos to an already chaotic presidential campaign or better choices for centrists, or both– all depending on when and how Bloomberg enters the 2016 fray.
As the speculation about Bloomberg running grows, one columnist wrote “Why Bloomberg Can Win,” which this author quickly changed to “Why Bloomberg Could Win.” (emphasis mine)
Subsequently, others, including this writer, opined that it might be best for Bloomberg to focus on looking beyond 2016 and on “paving the way for a viable, ‘robust’ centrist movement, perhaps even a full-blown centrist political party in the future.”
One reason so many wish for a more moderate, centrist and more inclusive movement (or party) is the deep polarization and ideological extremism that presently exist in our country and the sad state of and dismal choices offered by the two major political parties.
As Morton Kondracke rightly points out in Bloomberg Could Start a Third Party, “As America becomes more polarized, the desire grows for a candidate in the center focused on building consensus and getting results.”
Chances of Bloomberg winning “outright” are slim. Holman W. Jenkins Jr. at the Wall Street Journal writes in How Bloomberg Could Win, “[I]t’s not inconceivable [Bloomberg] could win outright, though it’s mostly inconceivable.”
But, Jenkins explains:
…winning outright has never been the plan. Mr. Bloomberg has been polling for years. For as long as he has indulged presidential fantasies, he has likely understood his path to the White House lies through the House of Representatives, only partly because of all the congressmen he could afford to buy.
Jenkins then goes through an unlikely, complex scenario as to how, after getting sufficient general-election support “to deny an electoral college victory to either major-party candidate,” Bloomberg pulls it off.
Jenkins bases his scenario on the theory that if Trump or Cruz becomes the GOP’s nominee, the GOP-controlled House — which would normally elect the Republican nominee — would blink and, “rather than shoving your own party’s nominee down the country’s unwelcoming throat,” elect a compromise candidate — voila Bloomberg.
Jenkins’ rationalization:
But think about it this way: You’re a GOP House member voting to impose a president on the country after one of the most raucous elections in American history. Your party’s nominee has already shown himself to be unacceptable to, say, 60% of the country. When would voters of every stripe get their first chance to register outrage and frustration with this state of affairs? That’s right, two years later when you and other House members are up for re-election.
Jenkins contends that there are actually “37 billion reasons” Republican House members (he throws in “or even a Democrat”) might lean toward Bloomberg:
Mr. Bloomberg’s minions surely would be circulating in the cloakrooms. They would be dishing out campaign checks and making sure that friendly congressmen know plenty more money is available from the ultra-wealthy media magnate for their re-election bids and, if necessary, to provide a soft landing and fund a rematch two years later.
I have no idea if this would be the case with Bloomberg, but I guess Jenkins knows the GOP-controlled House best.
Jenkins does admit that “a Bloomberg presidency would probably not be a disaster for the country” and finally gets to what the chances are of Bloomberg joining the fray.
If Republicans such as Rubio, Bush and Kasich — who “could beat Hillary Clinton and wallop Bernie Sanders” — were the nominee, Jenkins assumes that Bloomberg would remain on the sidelines.
But what if Clinton is the Democratic nominee facing either Cruz or Trump?
Jenkins:
Presumably the decision would turn on whether Mrs. Clinton seems too damaged, too polarizing to beat Trump/Cruz. Likely he would not intervene if Mrs. Clinton seemed certain to prevail—though we might be wrong. It’s possible Mr. Bloomberg might come to view her as too compromised—and too likely to be indicted—to provide the leadership the country needs.
He adds, “If a race between Mrs. Clinton and one of Mr. Bloomberg’s unacceptable Republicans were shaping up…Quite likely, Mr. Bloomberg would reconcile himself to a President Clinton rather than risk being remembered in history as the man who assured the election of President Trump or President Cruz.”
I honestly believe that Mr. Bloomberg will do the right thing for the country.
Holman W. Jenkins Jr. is a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal.
Lead photo: lev radin / Shutterstock.com
