As talk again of Michael Bloomberg running for President as an independent occurs once again, some think “deja vu,” this happened before. However, this time is different:
He has set March as a deadline, according to one, and his decision will likely be contingent on the results of early primaries, and he's more likely to take the leap if the "extremes" -- meaning Trump, Ted Cruz or Democrat Bernie Sanders -- prevail.
"If you have a Democratic frontrunner who is opposed to capitalism, and a Republican frontrunner who wants to deport 10 million immigrants, yeah, that'll make a difference," said the person, who has direct knowledge of his preparation, which includes polling and message-testing.
While the sentence said “Trump, Ted Cruz or Democrat Bernie Sanders -- prevail”, look deeper. The person with direct knowledge mentions a candidate “opposed to capitalism” first, which certainly is not Hillary Clinton. Then, lets into Bloomberg’s electoral college potential:
Bloomberg would be less interested in running if Hillary Clinton or a more moderate GOP candidate emerges from the early contest, two sources in Bloomberg's circle told POLITICO. But one of the insiders added that part of Bloomberg’s thinking is that if Clinton becomes the party’s nominee and there is a federal indictment hanging over her, that would undermine her ability to serve. …
He would most likely serve as a spoiler in Northeastern states, and potentially Florida, which has a large Jewish population...
Now the map I made is slightly generous, but given that his strength would be in the NE and potentially Florida AT LEAST, I have included in the Bloomberg column many of the Bill Clinton Democratic states-meaning states that Bill Clinton won in 1992, turned perpetually blue, but did not vote for Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, etc. They’re largely suburban, economically moderate, and socially liberal: that’s Michael Bloomberg’s alley. Bloomberg’s not a real “Republican:” he only joined the party to run in the 2001 mayoral election in NY. He was a Democrat before.
Bloomberg is liberal on guns, gay rights, the environment, abortion, and middle of the road on economics although some initiatives of his, like the congestion and soda taxes he proposed would piss of Club for Growth big time. He endorsed Obama in 2012; this guy is mainly going to draw from disaffected and moderate Democrats more than conservative Reps, tho he could get protest votes and some moderate Reps.
Now a candidate needs 270 electoral college votes to be elected without a House of Representatives vote. 270 is the smallest number to comprise an absolute majority (>50%) of 538, the total of Electoral College votes available. In this case, a relative majority (a plurality) of electoral college votes will not elect a President, even tho relative majorities (pluralities) in individual states do result in the largest vote-getter winning the electoral vote. In a 3 candidate race, that’s roughly 33% of the vote BEFORE minor parties: minor parties can lower that number, just as in two major candidate elections, many close elections (like IN 2008, or 1960 nationally) end up 49.x%-49.y% due to minor parties, so there’s a lot of potential for Bloomberg here. Especially given how averse the nation is to electing a self-declared socialist.
Another reason I’m for Hillary Clinton; a multi-party system is a slippery slope for America. While Bloomberg is moderate, having 3 major political entities would result in giving the GOP a license to get more right-wing, or allow the Greens into the political arena. We could also see parties far to the right of the GOP emerge, with views like Europe’s British National Party, Golden Dawn, and National Front. We’d have political chaos like Europe has.
