For a couple of reasons.
One is that Margaret's piece on the Commonweal Website is not the same as her column in the current print edition. Both worth reading, but I still don't understand why I am supposed to ignore Cory Booker, who is a senator and was the mayor of a city larger than South Bend. (A nice place, but you wouldn't want to go to college there.)
Another is that Never-Trump Republican Bret Stephens of the NYTimes is all in today for Mike Bloomberg, and there are two grafs in his piece that I would like to dissect.
Stephens says (admits?) that billionaire Mike would be a hard choice for the Democratic core, which seems more in the mood for taxing the super-rich, not electing one. But, he continues:
But the case for a Bloomberg candidacy is stronger and infinitely simpler: In a field divided between politically feeble centrists, unelectable progressives, and one talented but awfully young small-city mayor, he … can … win.And how does Stephens know he... can... win?
Because the voters who will matter in the election — that is, those who live neither in deep blue nor deep red states — want a centrist. Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona and Florida tell pollsters they want “a Democratic nominee who is more moderate than most Democrats,” and that they prefer “one who would bridge the partisan divide,” according to a report Friday from my colleagues Jonathan Martin and Katie Glueck.
There is an assumption in that first paragraph that the progressives are "unelectable." The assumption might, just possibly, be false. People who were unelectable one year out from election day have been elected in the past. Like in 2016. If Warren is unelectable, why is she currently leading the pack in most polls?
The second paragraph seems to me to be saying: 1) that the good folks in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona and Florida, if you corner them in a coffee shop, will tell you -- one year before the election -- that they will want to vote for someone who can "bring us together again" at this time next year, and 2) that the good folks in Michigan, etc, should choose the nominee, so forget about the uninteresting folks in Maine, New York, Georgia, Texas and California and about the unelectable leader in the polls today.
I have problems with all of that.
For one thing, last time folks wanted a president who could "bring us together again," they chose Richard M. Nixon.
This I can say confidently: The presidential election is still a year away.
Just opened the computer, Tom, to call attention to the Bret Stephen's column. You're right the election is a whole year away...so not to start foaming at the mouth about Bloomberg.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Stephens make a solid--if not dispositive--case for Bloomberg. So everyone read it... As I followed his argument, I realized that there are a lot of conservative, like Stephens, who cannot vote for Trump--ever. So consider that Bloomberg could be the candidate that soaks up a lot of Republicans who will never go for Bernie or Warren. Think about it.
Speaking of "a lot of conservatives," Jim what do you make Stephens's argument.
DeleteThe problem about the Democratic strategy of going for the middle of the road is that it neglects the young people who are not middle of the road but favor progressives like Sanders and Warren.
ReplyDeleteThe young people provided a lot of the energy for Obama's victories. I suspect they helped move many of the swing voters who actually want something different and voted for Obama then Trump because each was different. Many voters in the middle really don't like either the Democrats or the Republican but know a third party is a wasted vote.
Bret Stephen's makes some convincing points. I'm not going to say he's wrong, at this time. Of course I would vote for him against Trump.
ReplyDeleteBTW, did anyone read the book that Bloomberg wrote with Carl Pope, "Climate of Hope: How Cities, Businesses, and Citizens Can Save the Planet"?
An alternative point of view is this article by Matthew Yglesias on the Vox News site. He makes the point that Bloomberg would be better off investing down-ballot than running for president personally.
Time will tell, I guess!
Not for the first time I wish there were an edit function for comments. First sentence of my comment should read, "Bret Stephen's article..." And "...I would vote for Bloomberg against Trump." Pronouns should have have antecedents.
DeleteIf I were picking the candidate who could pound Trump into a pulp in a debate, it would be Bernie, hands down.
ReplyDeleteIf defeating Trump and All His Works were less paramount and I were looking at someone with fire in the belly and a steady hand, it would be Klobuchar, Booker, or Buttigieg.
I would certainly keep an eye on Castro and Gabbard as coming-uppers.
Warren has been an invaluable voice in American politics, but she is trying way too hard to have detailed answers and plans to Everything without necessarily listening to anyone else. It takes one control freak to spot another, and I sense a frighteningly kindred spirit there.
I cannot bring myself to vote for rich people running campaigns as vanity projects--Yang, Steyer, and Bloomberg.
Yang may be ushering in the age of the political technocrat. I think the guy has interesting ideas, but I hope I die before too many people like Yang, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg (eeeekkk!) decide the next logical step in their career arcs is to run the country.
Yes, I feel that kindred spirit too; one reason I hope she's not the candidate for whom I will have to vote.
DeleteLatest fundraising message from Bernie camp:
ReplyDeleteLet’s say Mike Bloomberg decided to spend just 1 percent of his obscene wealth in his quest to buy the presidency. That’d be around $500 million — a figure that is certainly possible.
Do you know how many Bernie Sanders donations it would take to match that, at an average donation of $19? The answer is more than 26 million donations.
Maybe Bloomberg will just increase donations from Bernie supporters.
After a conversation with my son who works in the financial industry, I have revised my opinion of Bloomberg somewhat. As he put it, Bloomberg is a billionaire who didn't start with a glass floor. He actually did originate something useful, the Bloomberg Terminal. Still don't know that that qualifies him to be president, but being qualified doesn't seem to be a requirement nowadays.
ReplyDeleteFar be it from me to deny Bloomberg his due props for earning his fortune the old-fashioned way, but - if the current presidency doesn't throw cold water on the notion that a successful business person makes for a successful president, I don't know what will.
DeleteAnd now this. Deval Patrick, former MA governor, is contemplating a run for president. The urge is going around like a case of stomach flu.
ReplyDeleteMakes me want to go out and get a flu shot ...
Delete