Bloomberg's Electoral Math

Mike Bloomberg’s departure from the Republican Party—convenient for a while, but no longer—sets the stage for his presidential bid. Of course, no third party or independent candidate has ever won the presidency. Only Teddy Roosevelt, a former president, has ever come close and that was in 1912.

But Bloomberg has a shot. The first and most obvious reason is that with a personal fortune tagged at anywhere from $5 billion to $20 billion, Bloomberg could outspend either party by writing himself a check for $500 million or $1 billion and not even notice the money was gone. This is how he became mayor—though if it was not for 9/11, Mark Green would have won in 2001. Even in Manhattan, it is possible to live off the interest of just $4 billion.

The real interesting question is what he could do with all that money. Ross Perot, for all his 19% of the popular vote, was not close to winning a single electoral vote. But he spent only $65 million. The key is not to win a large share of the popular vote, but a large enough share to win some electoral votes.

In the last two presidential elections, the winner scored just a thin margin of the electoral votes—Bush had 15 to spare in 2004. If the race between the major party candidates is similarly close in 2008, Bloomberg would need to win just a state or two to deny anyone else a majority in the Electoral College. If no one wins a majority, under the Constitution, the new House of Representative would pick the president.

For Bloomberg to win the House’s support, he’d certainly need a plurality of the popular and electoral vote. His charm, record, and media budget will have to take care of the former. Bloomberg could rack up 181 electoral votes (a plurality of 540) by winning California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Washington—that’s a total of 199. These are either liberal states, or big swing states where the parties are neck and neck. It could happen.

Is this the end of Tony?

With just one episode left, there seems insufficient time for the Sopranos to wrap things up. Tony could get killed. That’s the quickest way and it seems more than possible now that Phil Leotardo has put a contract on his head and that the Lupertazzis have killed Bobby Bacala and (almost) Silvio. But I still think it’s too easy (and not just because the producers want to leave open the chance for a movie sequel).

LKA thinks that Dr. Melfi firing Tony as a patient is a signal to us that we should also lose faith in Tony’s humanity. Maybe. But I disagree for two reasons. First, murderer and adulterer though he may be, Tony has always been the hero of the show and essentially a sympathetic figure. For the show to end by saying that Tony was a bastard all along would, in essence, say the audience has wasted its time and sympathy on a monster. I don’t think that David Chase holds that view now or ever. I also think he would want to undermine the show’s premise in its final weeks.

I also think that Dr. Melfi’s turning against Tony is wrong and hypocritical. It has never been her role to reform Tony or to get him to stop his criminal ways. No, she takes her patient as she finds him, and tries to make him a healthier version of himself. After all, the doctors at the hospital know who Tony is, and no one says they should refuse to operate to save his life after he has been shot (ditto for Christopher and Phil). The studies now being bandied about by Melfi’s fellow psychiatrists all seem to be based on the role of a prison shrink whose role it would be to make the convicts into better citizens. That is just not Melfi’s job, and she would know that. (I did think the bit about him ripping up the magazine was pretty hilarious in this regard.) After all, Johnny Sack was a killer, too, and he was treated for his cancer by a world famous oncologist—and this was after his conviction and imprisonment.

One might compare the beginning of “Analyze This”, where Billy Crystal’s psychologist character tries to refuse treatment to Robert DeNiro’s mob boss. “What am I supposed to do, make you a happy, well adjusted gangster?” he asks. In the end, he comes to like DeNiro, and he helps him. In the same way, Melfi has always liked Tony, with the full knowledge that he had people murdered on a regular basis.

I must concede that there has been no advancement toward my theory that the show will end with AJ being arrested and him giving up Tony (except that AJ is out of the hospital and that Tony roughed him up a bit). But I am still going with it. One terrific way to end: AJ gets arrested. He is facing 20 years in jail—hate crimes, racketeering, assault, attempted murder on Junior. He agrees—or is merely asked—to testify against Tony. But meanwhile, Tony cannot be found. He is up there sitting in the attic, slowly going mad, and the show ends with doubt about whether he will give himself up to help his son, or kill himself, or get killed. (Interestingly, Phil was also in his attic when he refused to see Tony when Tony came to his door—he’s a bit nuts as well.)

One of the great things about the Sopranos is that Chase doesn’t feel the need to put a bow on things. It can be messy, like life, with no neat endings. Every season has ended that way—maybe the whole series will end untidily as well. By the same token, every season has ended with the focus on Tony’s nuclear family. If the show ends with him, Carmela and the kids finally breaking apart—over AJ especially—that is the way it could really wrap up.

Whatever happens, this has been a fantastic season, maybe the best ever. However it ends works for me.