« How mean are American high schools? | Main | Jon Chait on patronizing Bush »

December 10, 2006


One other change from 1980 is that the country is much more polarized geographically. Someone like Bloomberg could do well among moderates and conservatives in the Northeast (where the Republican party is practically dead) and among liberals and moderates in some Farm Belt and Western states that the national Democratic Party has no chance of winning, anyway.

But recent third-party candidates have done especially poorly in the South (ironic, given George Wallace's success there), and the probablity of a GOP sweep there may scare voters elsewhere into supporting the Democrats. At any rate, Bloomberg could only take off if either the Democrat or Republican were weak enough to be written off by the national media. Perot's chances in 1992 were the strongest just before Clinton was formally nominated and was (temporarily) seen as a weak candidate capable of finishing third. Bloomberg will probably spend enough money to keep his name in the news, but I doubt he'll run if neither party nominates an obvious loser.

The bigger threat is from the Libertarian-Right, not from the Center. If the Libertarian Party nominates a top-notch candidate -- Dennis Miller, Larry Elder, Neal Boortz, Jesse Ventura, Wayne Root -- the Republicans will have serious problems, whomever their standardbearer might be. Look what the LP just did to the GOP in Missouri and Montana. Caused them to lose two Senate races.

But of course, the liberal media doesn't want to play up the Libertarian angle. To do so, would make Republicans look too moderate. And we can't have that.

No, they'd rather take votes away from the GOP in the Center. Thus, the Bloomburg meme.

Eric at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

The comments to this entry are closed.