NOT SO FAST

The very polarization that is tempting the billionaire to run means he cannot win BY RONALD B. RAPOPORT and WALTER J. STONE

‘Bloomberg Closer to Running for President,” trumpets the New York Times headline.

Sound familiar? The date of the story is Dec. 31, 2007, about a possible presidential run the next year as an independent. Bloomberg decided that he could not and did not want to mount a quixotic campaign. That was the right call in 2008 and remains the right call in 2016. If Bloomberg’s goal is to win, he should forget it.

The temptation to run this year must be even greater than in 2008. The parties are more polarized than they have been in generations. The Republicans are in disarray with the prospect of nominating Donald Trump, who provokes antipathy f rom many within his own party. The Democratic presumptive nominee struggles against a 74-year-old self-avowed socialist.

But the condition — party polarization — that makes this year so tempting is also the barrier to success. The punishing logic of the plurality-winner-take-all system in the Electoral College combines with the stark choice between the likely Democratic and Republican nominees to guarantee defeat to an independent candidate.

No matter how much current polls may suggest the country longs for a reasonable centrist alternative, and no matter how much money he is willing to commit to his campaign, a Bloomberg candidacy is doomed to defeat.

When the push and shove of the campaign gets going in the fall, the majorparty nominees remind their partisan bases that defecting to the independent candidate only increases the chances of the other party’s candidate. The more Democrats despise the Republican Party and the more Republicans demonize Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the more reluctant potential Bloomberg supporters are to spend their vote on him.

Imagine the best case for Bloomberg: The Republicans nominate Ted Cruz and the Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders. In this improbable scenario, every vote a moderate Democrat casts for Bloomberg helps the operatic Cruz; every vote a disgruntled Republican considers giving to the former New York mayor is really a vote for a socialist “giveaway” program.

Despite claims about large numbers of unaffiliated voters, about 90% of the voting public either identifies with one of the parties or, if independent, leans toward a party. This, too, is a consequence of polarization. As the parties have moved apart, they have sharpened the policy differences between them in the minds of voters. This makes it harder to remain neutral or indifferent.

In a Sanders-Cruz or Sanders-Trump race, a moderate alternative like Bloomberg would certainly poll well into the summer. But in the general election he must convince voters that he is the best candidate with the best ideas and the best chance of implementing them. Most voters start the campaign believing their party is the better alternative.

And he must persuade voters state by state that he can actually come in first and claim the all-important electoral votes. Second place counts for zilch.

Are there reasons for Bloomberg to run even if he cannot win? Sure. He would help shape the terms of the debate. He might even have a lasting impact on one or both parties as the Progressives did in the early 20th century. He might play the spoiler and change the outcome of the election.

Yet, as Bloomberg said in a 2013 interview with New York Magazine, “I am 100% convinced that you cannot in this country win an election unless you are the nominee of one of the two major parties.”

The allure of the presidency is still there, but his unclouded judgment then remains on target.