Bloomberg vs Trump

 

In the words of Red Buttons: "Strange things are happening...".  We're 240-some-odd days from the election, 8 months or so, and we can begin to see the vague outlines of how it's going to shape up.

Joe Biden, who just a few months back was the Dem front-runner, has slipped to 4th place as his campaign collapses reminiscent of a slow-motion train wreck.  The DNC has changed the debate rules to allow Mike Bloomberg to buy his way onto the stage.  Even so, Bernie Sanders has surged to first place and the DNC is going to be faced with a plateful of unappetizing choices at the convention.  If Bernie is, by then, still the leader, the DNC is going to have to torpedo him because there is no way he can compete against Donald Trump in a bustling economy.  Only Mike Bloomberg stands a chance now.  It's a small chance, but that's all the Dems have at this point.

What's interesting is that Bloomberg is an inveterate gun-grabber, so the pro-gun electorate finds him abhorrent.  Trump has been, over the past few months, methodically alienating that same community.  If the contest in November is 'Bloomberg vs Trump', 120-plus million gun owners will have no place to go...

...except to a third-party.  Or just stay home.  What if the LP or the Constitution Party puts up a plausible candidate for the first time in 30 years?  The threshold for getting a podium at the Presidential Debates is only 5% of the electorate.  In 2016, almost 129 million votes were cast.  Were some third-party to gather 7 million votes, the FEC would be forced to include them in the 2024 debates or, like the DNC in 2016, to rig the rules to keep the debates a two-party affair.  Either choice would be 'good news': one would finally allow a fresh voice to be heard nationally, while the other would demonstrate once and for all how utterly corrupt the entire system is.

Strange things, indeed.