There’s something more than vaguely ridiculous about the ‘news’ that Mike Bloomberg has endorsed Barack Obama. After all, Bloomberg is a Democrat. He was his entire life and a fairly major giver and only become a nominal Republican because of a very weird partisan politics of New York City. And he couldn’t even keep that up for very long as he eventually shed his nominal GOP affiliation and began running as an independent — as a matter of convenience and ballot position in 2009 he ran as a Republican again.On top of this of course, he appears to agree with President Obama on virtually every major issue of the day. So aside from whatever middle-aged male pissing match kind of mojo these two guys have going on, it’s hard to imagine how Bloomberg could not vote for Obama unless he had the choice to vote for Mike Bloomberg.

That said, the key issue in Bloomberg’s endorsement comes here …

If the 1994 or 2003 version of Mitt Romney were running for president, I may well have voted for him because, like so many other independents, I have found the past four years to be, in a word, disappointing.

In other words, one of the key reasons that I suspect Romney will lose next week: that it’s almost treated as a given that Romney is something like a software package or a car that has a different edition each year or so and gets a total makeover every half dozen years or more. Windows 95 vs Windows 8. Or perhaps the original Safari weirdness version of Banana Republic versus the store it is today.