He makes a good terminal
Peter Brown (not the very liberal Houston City Councilman) analyzes why a Mike Bloomberg run looks less likely. I've posted on Bloomberg frequently here, for many reasons: a) a Bloomberg candidacy completely reshapes the race when he decides to drop $1 billion on his candidacy, b) I think a Bloomberg candidacy is likely -- though not guaranteed -- to cripple the GOP candidate, a la Perot, and c) I'm fascinated by the arrogance by which many politicians think they can win, even when they can't.
Anyway, Brown's points are well taken:
1. The enduring Democratic race makes it more difficult for
2. Bloomberg's stated rationale has been that he'd run if the parties nominated polarizing candidates. McCain isn't that, and isn't seen that why right now (though that perception could change).
3. Polls haven't been particularly kind to Bloomberg's idea of himself as non-partisan wunderkind.
4. I agree with this:
Yet Bloomberg is apparently confident that the logistical obstacles to an independent White House effort - getting on the ballot, creating campaign operations in all states, hiring staff, etc. - can be surmounted.When you're willing to blow a billion on the race, all logistical things are possible. Doesn't mean you'll get votes though.
I've occasionally gotten the sense that Bloomberg really wants to run and is looking for an excuse. If he really only wants to run if he can win and he is rational, then he definitely won't run. But then, I wouldn't bet on billionaires being rational in self-assessments of their capabilities. And trust me, any political consultant who gets near Bloomberg is telling him that he can win, because if Bloomberg gets in the race, political consultants see dollar signs.
No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.