So it looks like I need to make a quick addendum to my last post: You can never be certain how an election will turnout, unless Michael Bloomberg tries to run as a third party candidate, because that can only end in embarrassing, ignoble failure.

Yes, it seems Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a run for the Presidency, if the Washington Post is to be believed, and has even gone so far as commission a poll and said he’d spend $1 billion of his own money on a run. Michael Bloomberg always seems to be “flirting” with the idea, because he’s just that kind of politician: egotistical enough to serious consider it, but too realistic to actually try.

But some think that, since both parties are on the verge of successful insurgencies, he might actually do it. This has set off some excitement with centrists, who love the idea. There’s also been some hand wringing among Democrats, since there’s always a segment of the party under the impression that American cultural conservatism is some kind of unflappable juggernaut while their own base would fall apart at the slightest breeze.

Personally, I find the idea hilarious. Is it really that hard for some people to see the obvious reasons why “Bloomberg 2016” would obviously fail? I guess not. So I’ll lay it out:

Bloomberg isn’t all that popular, and he’s less charismatic

He was popular enough to win, but of the three elections he was in, only one had a convincing win. The other two he barely polled over 50%. Voters didn’t hate him, but generally people didn’t seem to be unhappy to see him go. His successor, Bill De Blasio, was something of a repudiation to Bloomberg’s legacy. The point is, he was never the kind of runaway charismatic figure you expect could run on his own without a party.

Bloomberg succeeded, in large part, because he filled a niche in New York’s particular environment. Like most conservatives running in an overwhelmingly Democratic area, he could run as “nobody’s man”, unattached to the local Democratic party machinery, and further away from the Republican party. That goes a long way, but it wouldn’t translate to the national election. “But wait” you might be thinking “he’s not attached to either party, that will help with people sick of America’s political polarization”

No, no it won’t

Non-Partisanship isn’t really popular, or real

Of course, people always bemoan polarization and the media heaps praise on politicians for shows of bipartisanship. A large segment of the population claims to be independent. But when it comes to actually supporting things, things that all falls apart pretty quickly. There’s the, by now, old observation that most “independents” actually hold beliefs that are almost identical to those of the two major parties, while the rest hold strong and uncompromising beliefs that don’t line up with the major parties exactly, but would usually lead them to support one party or the other depending on the issue of the day.

This applies to Bloomberg and the No-labels crowd as much as anyone. As much as they claim a sort of pragmatism, their policy views pretty much always come down to a mix of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, which is pretty much just elite opinion. That’s a mix that sounds good in theory, especially to upper middle class, but there are usually enough caveats that turn people off. The good will they get usually disappears as soon as they start talking about cutting social security and raising the retirement age.

Neither Party is on the verge of rebellion

Enough dumping on self proclaimed centrists. The main reason a Bloomberg run would be dead on arrival is because the parties aren’t actually falling apart. Yes, David Brookes and country club Republicans bemoan Trump, and he goes down like motor oil with large segments of the Republican establishment. But still, he’s viewed favorably by 60% or so of Republicans and solid majorities of Republicans say they could see themselves supporting him. He actually does about the same as the rest of the Republican field, if not better. Actually, if you look across candidates and time, it becomes pretty apparent that support just means “how close are they to winning”.

This is even more true with Sanders. 79% of Democrats view him favorably, 2/3rds of Democrats say they could vote for him, and again, that number has gone up the closer he gets to the nomination. It’s actually a bit baffling that people expect large scale defections from moderates in the Democratic base, since there’s so little evidence to support it.

Most elections are won around the margins, and it takes a lot to split voter base in a meaningful way. Like, “slavery” as a wedge issue in the Whig party, that level of rancor. Nobody is close to that level, not at the moment anyways. And why would they be? At the end of the day, whatever stylistic differences the candidates have, none of them are an earth shattering deviation from what you’d expect from either party, so most people Democrats and Republicans would just end up accommodating themselves to the situation. He probably couldn’t win enough of the vote to tilt the election one way or the other. He probably couldn’t even be a spoiler.

Bloomberg’s politics aren’t that appealing

I mean, really think about it, what’s his appeal? Is it that he’s as smug as a liberal on social policy, and punches down like a conservative on economic and law enforcement policy?

Wishy Washy Centrists have never been strong third party candidate

Who’s the closest third party candidate we could compare Bloomberg to? John Anderson? That’s the closest analogy in America’s political history, and you don’t even know who he is. What does that tell you?