RochesterConservative.com

I just posted this over on the D&C forum in response to an essay about Bloomberg joining the race as an Independent:

***

Lets just use your scenario of a Republican (any Republican), Clinton and Bloomberg in a three way race. It’s 1992 all over again in reverse.

Hillary Clinton has high negative numbers, even in her own party (just like GHWB had negative problems in his party because we read his lips and then he did the opposite).

Bloomberg’s policies are similar to Hillary’s and he provides a candidate for her party’s negative voters who don’t want Hillary but really don’t want a Republican either. (Perot siphoned off established voters primarily from GHWB’s support)

The Republican comes in with a base of at least 30% of the vote that won’t vote for Hillary (I’d wager she’s the most hated person active in politics today to core Republican voters). If the Republican can win over some moderate Republicans and some right leaning moderates, he’ll probably end up with at least 40% of the vote.

The 1992 election broke down to
Bill Clinton: 43%
GHWB: 37.4%
Ross Perot: 18.9%

Perot got just enough votes from Republican leaning voters in some southern and midwest states that traditionally lean red that the electoral college votes were tossed to Clinton in those states.

Now, lets look at what happens in a few key states that lean blue if Republican support stays about the same as GWB in 2004 (since if you voted to re-elect Bush, you’re probably likely to vote for the next candidate too) and if Hillary loses 15% of the Democratic vote.

California (2004): 5.5m R, 6.7m D
(projected): 5.5 R, 5.7 D (puts it in play)
Illinois (2004): 2.3 R, 2.9 D
(projected): 2.3 R, 2.5 D (puts it in play)
Michigan (2004): 2.3 R, 2.5 D
(projected): 2.3R, 2.1 D (gives to R)
Minnesota (2004): 2.3 R, 2.4 D
(projected): 2.3 R, 2 D (gives it to R)
New Jersey (2004): 1.7 R, 1.9 D
(projected): 1.7 R, 1.6 D (gives it to R)
Pennsylvania (2004): 2.8 R, 2.9 D
(projected): 2.8 R, 2.5 D (gives it to R)
Washington (2004): 1.3 R, 1.5 D
(projected): 1.3 R, 1.3 D (puts it in play)
Wisconsin (2004): 1.478 R, 1.489 D
(projected): 1.478 R, 1.27 D (gives it to R)

Now… NY is kinda special since it’s Bloomberg’s home state and he’s the mayor of almost half it’s population, so lets look at him drawing the standard 15% and 30%.
New York (2004): 3 R, 4.3 D
(projection 15%): 3 R, 3.7 D
(projection 30%): 3 R, 3 D (puts it in play)

The Republican candidate takes all of the swing states, some of the deep blue states and puts other deep blue states that are vital to any dem’s chances into play.

All of that said, the one candidate who can screw that up for Republicans is… McCain. Lots of Republicans really, really don’t like him and if it wasn’t for his stance on the war, they wouldn’t have any reason to vote for him at all. He’ll have a hard time getting his base out to vote for him which will lower Republican numbers. Whatever their issue is with the other candidates, I think Republicans will show up and hold their nose when they vote for him to make sure Hillary doesn’t win.

Why does McCain get the press and buzz? Because he’s the media’s candidate of choice for the right. They just love that he’s “a maverick.” He was on path for a “certain victory” in the 2000 primary too after winning New Hampshire and was shut down elsewhere in the country. Look at where support for Lieberman amongst dedicated liberals has ended up in recent years (which is why he’s now an Independent). That’s how dedicated conservatives feel about McCain.

I think the most likely result for the Republicans will be Romney (who isn’t my first choice for my primary vote on the 5th). I still wouldn’t be surprised to see Obama emerge as the Democratic candidate.

But if it’s a Romney, Hillary, Bloomberg race, Romney wins in a landslide. If he can win Governor of Massachussets as a Republican without a major third party liberal splitting the vote for him, he’s already dangerous.

PL