The Significance of Mayor Bloomberg’s Party Affiliation Switch

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/bloomberg_politics;_ylt=AoBjFAYffB8v3BlCriYxjGOs0NUE

Mayor Bloomberg’s switch to being registered as an Independent from Republican (the article at the link states he had previously been a lifelong Democrat) strikes me as highly significant.  Why?  Because it dovetails perfectly with a concept/trend I have been observing and talking about lately and makes that concept much closer to becoming a reality.

Start with the fact that polls indicate almost 40% of this country is so sick of both Democrats and Republicans they declare themselves to be Independents. The difficulty for Independent Voters is that there is no organized Political Party for Independents. History, even recent history, has not been kind to third parties. The Libertarian Party can’t seem to gain traction and Ross Perot’s Party as well as the Green Party are seen as having split the vote to allow one of the major parties victory. (Clinton in 92 and 96, Bush in 2000.)

The two major parties exploit this fact by fielding policies and candidates who split the 40% right down the middle. Think about it. If the Independent 40% could somehow gain just another 11%, they could be a majority all on their own. To gain that majority, a number of things are needed, but let’s focus on two. The first is a rallying candidate with the financial resources to mount a campaign. Bloomberg seems to fit that bill.

The second thing needed is resistance to splitting the 40%. The GOP has been a master at this, primarily by using social wedge issues. This is where my concept comes in.

Imagine this “in general” breakdown of the political spectrum. Simple, I know, but it illustrates the point. The Democratic Party today is anchored to the left of the political spectrum and extends to the right. The Republican Party is anchored to the right and extends to the left. If 40% of voters consider themselves Independents in the center, then the spectrum would look as follows.

\_________30%______\__________40%_______________/__________30%________/

What would happen if one of the two major parties were able to come up with a message that would move the 40% as a block to their side of the ledger? 40% + 30% = 70%, which translates to a majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and probable occupation of the White House.

The problem is there is a reason the 40% is the 40%. In other words, there is something about the make-up of the major parties that causes people today to not want to have their name associated with either party. If I was a strategist for one of the two major parties, here is the question I would be asking myself: What is the major factor that is keeping the 40% from joining us?

Why ask that question? Think of it this way. Sometimes you have to give up something in order to receive something in return. What if a major party dropped the demands of a segment of their party? Even if that segment represented a third of its current membership (10% overall), that would mean the party could gain 40% of the electorate. 20% + 40% = 60%, which is still a substantial majority. In addition, it might even be possible that 10% of the fringe membership of the other major party might react to the changes in policy and membership by shifting their loyalty. This gives the Party that made the adjustment not only the 40%, but they could get back the 10% numbers they gave up in the first place. There is that 70% majority again. Here is how the spectrum would look after the changes, presuming the Republicans were the ones to make those changes.

\___20%______\______________________70%________________________/__10%_/

Or if a Centrist candidate emerged with a third party message that caught fire, then the spectrum might look like this.

\____15%___\________________________70%_____________________/__15%____/

What Party policy changes are needed to make this happen? Let’s talk about that next time.