North America

Was that joke on us?

In last year’s Republican primaries, there were two somewhat charming, sometimes ferocious Northerners, both running in ways that were neither conventionally “establishment” (like Bush, Rubio, and Kasich) nor conventionally “anti-establishment” (like Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, or Perry).

Both of these candidates were fat—though one had once been skinny, while the other had once been humungous. One was your common politician type, willing to make a deal with the devil in order to rise to power. The other was the devil; who, as usual, did not adequately reward the deal.

Okay, I think you see where I’m going with this. One was named Donald Trump and the other Chris Christie. Trump ended up getting 24.3 percent of the votes in the Iowa Caucus, and 45 percent of the primary votes nationally; Christie just 1.8 and 0.2 percent.

Christie ended up becoming Trump’s attack dog, famously helping to take down Marco Rubio in a primary debate just before dropping out of the race to endorse Trump. Christie was not picked as Trump’s VP in return for this, as many had expected him to be, nor was he even offered a high-ranking cabinet position. Trump, as we know, opted to stack his cabinet with businessmen, far-right types, Reince Priebus, and family instead.

Now, why did Christie do poorly in the primary? There are several possible reasons, but one theory, at least, has to be that he was taken down by the media. He was the (big) butt of many, many fat jokes, and even more Bridge-gate jokes. This seems like history now, but in 2013 and 2014— just when Christie’s future had otherwise looked so promising because of his weight loss, re-election, and love of Bruce—it was constant.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not so squeamish as to be against fat jokes of political figures. And I am not so naive to doubt Christie having been highly corrupt in Bridgegate. As his strong support of Trump has since displayed, Christie’s ambition has few limits.

The question is whether the media’s negative coverage of Christie was proportionate to his crime. I don’t have any data to say whether it was or was not, but, from my own recollection, I would guess that it was highly disproportionate. This is not surprising, really, since any event involving New York City — which Bridgegate did, of course — is likely to be covered more than it deserves to be. Moreover, the media tends to be at least somewhat left-leaning, and inhabited by skinny people, and so is perhaps not so disposed to be sympathetic to fat Conservatives like Christie.

Finally, the Republicans themselves did not rush to Christie’s defence in the wake of Bridgegate, at least not to the extent they typically do to their own (and, indeed, as they have since come to Trump’s, whose crimes—at least against morality, if not also against the law—are far worse). This may have been because both the Conservative establishment and Tea Party saw Christie as a possible threat in 2016. They were afraid of the wrong Northeasterner. But then, why should they have been worried about Trump, who at the time was still just a crazy celebrity making Youtube videos about how his people were trying to locate Barack Obama’s birth certificate?

Many people would say I am underrating Christie’s crime (and, maybe, overrating his political charisma). They may be right, of course. Obviously we don’t know what Christie’s odds against Trump would have been had there never been a Bridgegate, or if comedians did not find fat jokes amusing.

Is there a lesson here? I don’t know that either. (But I am sorry for asking so many rhetorical questions). If there is, it may go something like this: if you work in the media, and see a fat corrupt man get taken down, think twice about piling on. That fat corrupt man might be the only one capable of obstructing the bridge the devil must cross on his road into Washington D.C.

 

 

Advertisements
Standard
Images, North America

Image of the Day — Unique New York

Michael_R_BloombergMTE4MDAzNDEwMDU4NTc3NDIy

Last a month a report in the New York Times suggested that Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City from 2002 until 2014, has been thinking about running for President of the United States as a third-party candidate, and may be willing to spend as much as a billion dollars of his own money to do so. Today, on the sole day between the end of football season and the start of ex-Iowa primary season, Bloomberg himself confirmed that report.

According to MarketWatch, this is “the first time Bloomberg himself has said he might run, though his surrogates have told other outlets the former New York City mayor and founder of Bloomberg LP was considering such a move. ‘I find the level of political discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters,’ said Bloomberg”.

The Bloomberg strategy is a fairly simple one: first you take Manhattan, then you take D.C. The idea would be for him to secure huge amounts of donor money and media support available in New York City, as well as the 5.4% of America’s electoral college points that you get by winning New York state in the general election, and then use those assets in order to lure people outside of New York to vote Bloomberg on election day too, hoping that enough Americans will not want to vote for a non-centrist candidate like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Bernie Sanders.

While it still seems quite unlikely that Bloomberg would attempt to pull this off, it cannot be ruled out entirely, in particular because of the following constitutional catch: if none of the candidates in the general election wins more than 50% of the electoral college votes, then the president of the United States is chosen instead by a state-majority vote in the House of Representatives, wherein the congressmen and congresswomen representing each state vote amongst themselves to determine which presidential candidate their state desires. The candidate which has the backing of a majority of states then becomes president, while the vice-president is chosen by the Senate.

In such a vote, Alaska’s one congressman would have as much power as all of California’s dozens of congressmen put together. This vote would probably favour right-wing establishment candidates, since most states and congressional districts in the country tend to be relatively right-wing, Congress is currently controlled by a Republican majority, and congressmen tend to be establishmentarians. If it ever came to this, then, a candidate like Bloomberg might have something of an advantage over one like Cruz, Trump, Sanders, or, perhaps, Clinton.

Could it ever come to this? Well, it did in 1824, when “four candidates ran for president… Andrew Jackson got the most votes from Americans and the most votes in the Electoral College, but not a majority, so the race was turned over to the House of Representatives voting as states who picked John Quincy Adams instead.” Crucially, if Bloomberg could secure a victory in New York state in the general election, that alone might make it relatively difficult for one of the other two candidates to win an electoral college majority.

If, for example, Jimmy Carter had lost New York in 1976 to a third-party candidate, Carter still would have gotten more votes than his Republican opponent Gerald Ford, yet would have fallen short of the electoral college majority needed to avoid turning the vote over to Congress. Had a third-party candidate won New York, Pennsylvania, and Iowa instead of Obama in 2012, Obama would not have won a majority in the electoral college, which would have meant that the Congress would have been able to vote to select the president of the country instead.

What Bloomberg’s public presidential mulling-over really indicates, then, is the enduring power of both the state and city of New York. This is actually not just a Bloombergnagian phenomenon: Hilary Clinton served as one New York state’s two senators from 2001 to 2009, Bernie Sanders was born and raised in Brooklyn, and Trump in Queens. (Even Chris Christie has influence over bridges that reach New York). For a while there was also some presidential buzz about New York’s current governor Andrew Cuomo, who’s father Mario was also a longtime governor of New York and came relatively close to becoming president in 1988 and 1992.

At this point, in fact, the only leading candidates who do not have ties to New York are those who have ties to Florida: Rubio is a Florida senator and son of Cuban immigrants, Jeb Bush used to be a Florida governor and is near-fluent in Spanish, Cruz’s father is from Cuba (though Cruz is himself a senator representing Texas), and Trump has usually lived in Florida when not living in Manhattan.

New York is also a somewhat peculiar state, politically. Though on the one hand it is the heartland of liberal America (along with California, of course), on the other hand it has politics that are in some ways quite Republican-esque. It has, for instance, groups that are strongly pro-finance (because a lot of its money and jobs come directly or indirectly from Wall Street), pro-Israel (because it is home to an estimated 26% of America’s approximately 6.8 million Jews …some of whom would also be happy to see Bloomberg or Sanders become the first Jewish president rather than see Hilary become the second Clinton president), and pro-security (because it has been the main terrorist target in America, not only on 9-11 but in many other cases as well).

New York also has a sizeable right-leaning “upstate” region, in which potentially significant shale energy reserves are located. Unlike in nearby states, such as newly gas-rich Pennsylvania, New York has not yet been allowed to develop these resources. Some upstate New Yorkers may therefore be hoping for a president who will support the removal of the fracking moratorium in the state, so that they too can participate in the regional shale bonanza.

1988_large

The last time New York voted for a non-Democratic candidate was in 1984 when, along with most of the other states in the country, it approved of a second term for Ronald Reagan. In the following election of 1988, however, New York was one of just 10 states, and the only populous state, to vote against George H. W. Bush, who had been Reagan’s vice president. Will New York vote against a candidate from the Democratic Party again in 2016? Probably not, but of course we will soon find out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard