A nanny on horseback
Glenn Reynolds links to the New York Times story on the putative independent presidential candidacy of Mayor Michael Bloomberg with the tag "a nanny on horseback." The Times article provides a preview of the high-minded themes and gasbags that would be associated with his candidacy:
Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the {Bloomberg planning] session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”On the one hand, Bloomberg touts himself as contributing to the choices available to the electorate. On the other hand, voters who like choices might prefer to choose between a Democrat and a Republican rather than someone who pretends that partisan differences can be transcended. The area where bipartisanship might actually be helpful -- national security policy -- goes unmentioned by the Times. Bloomberg's candidacy by itself should serve as a warning of the illusory attractions of "bipartisanship," because it is a function of the unintended consequences of such blatantly unconstitutional legislation as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and its predecessors.Next week’s meeting, reported on Sunday in The Washington Post, comes as the mayor’s advisers have been quietly canvassing potential campaign consultants about their availability in the coming months.
And Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those talks. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee.
Perhaps because he is the billionaire mayor of their fair town, the Times caters to Bloomberg's vanity and pretends that some vice presidential candidate can add weight to a Bloomberg candidacy:
Among the other participants invited to the session next Sunday and Monday is Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who has said he would consider being Mr. Bloomberg’s running mate on an independent ticket.Bloomberg-Hagel, that's the ticket. Abnormal times, I guess, call for abnormal men -- bored rich men who crave attention.Mr. Boren declined to say which candidate would be strongest, but suggested “some kind of combination of those three: Bloomberg-Hagel, Bloomberg-Nunn.” He said Mr. Bloomberg would “not have to spend a lot of time raising money and he would not have to make deals with special interest groups to raise money.”
“Normally I don’t think an independent candidacy would have a chance” said Mr. Boren, who is the University of Oklahoma’s president. “I don’t think these are normal times.”
The Times devoted three reporters to this story. It would be nice if one of them asked an interviewee which state Bloomberg might carry, or whether he would even carry New York City. The correct answers are "none" and "no," and you can quote me on that.
JOHN adds: I agree that Bloomberg won't carry any states, but it's possible he could swing one or two. A threshold question is, would he take more votes from the Republican candidate, or the Democrat? My guess is the Democrat, although unlike Ralph Nader, it wouldn't be close to 100%. I doubt that Bloomberg would get many votes, but it might not take many to swing a purple state or two.
To comment on this post, go here.
