Bloomberg Peeing in a lot of People’s Pools

There’s been a lot of people getting upset at Bloomberg’s insistence in taking his fight a bit too far. Even Chucky Schumer seems to be getting a bit peeved with Bloomberg’s antics. It’s pretty simple to see why. If you count up the number of states that went blue in 2012 you get 25. If the Democrats are going to hold a majority in the Senate, they need to be able to appeal to red state voters. Even Chuck Schumer is more interested in holding onto power (and being Majority Leader someday) than he is in advancing gun control.

But that’s a separate issue from whether Bloomberg’s strategy is a smart one, if you concede Bloomberg is actually a true believer when it comes to gun control. Over the short term, I think Bloomberg’s strategy is disastrous. At best it weakens red state Dems with their base, and throws the seat and possibly the Senate to pro-gun Republicans. That lays the groundwork for us to take National Reciprocity, and make Bloomberg eat it (along with plenty of salt and a 20oz Coke). At worst for Bloomberg the ads have no effect, or actually help, in which case we can probably count on that Democrat to be a solid vote for us in the future. Not only that, but it would make Bloomberg appear impotent politically at a critical time for the Democratic Party.

Over the long term, Bloomberg’s strategy could be beneficial if he can make Democrats afraid to cross his money and influence. If he can win, he could succeed in cementing the Democratic Party as the anti-gun party, with gun control as a lasting major party plank. Will it work? It’s a bit of a long shot, but there’s only so much you can do when you’re just one rich asshole. Keeping the Dems anti-gun, and then waiting for the inevitable political winds to shift in their favor might be a strategy that can pay off eventually. But given the force disparity between the pro and anti camp, I think gun control being front and center will make it much harder for the Democrats to crawl their way back to a majority. Bloomberg needs to be careful. NRA is always careful not to pee in too many people’s pools. If you threaten to upset the apple cart too much, even your allies will turn against you.

9 thoughts on “Bloomberg Peeing in a lot of People’s Pools”

  1. “Schumer also criticized the ads for using actors with unconvincing accents.”

    Yeah. Because that must be why they don’t work.

  2. Bloomberg is a smart guy. His continued willingness to pursue a scorched earth policy on this makes me a bit nervous that he has an effective long-term strategy that isn’t completely apparent yet. I suspect he is targeting a relatively few number of Senators to keep the other sheep in the fold. He may be willing to sacrifice a few to keep an iron fist on the larger group of Senators that voted for gun restriction but might be reconsidering. He can then bide his time waiting to take advantage of the inevitable next mass atrocity.

    I am as blind to the effect of the NY super donors on elections as Bloomberg is to the actual will of the populace in rural Montana, Alaska etc. I can only hope that his calculus is off and actual democracy will win the day.


  3. I’m just confused by his strategy- and Bidens push as well. The problem with his long term plan is that perception in politics means a lot. If being antigun loses you elections, that’s not good for their side- even long term.

  4. Money quote from that article was Chuck Schumer talking about how he was proud to be an NRA member.

    1. I think the quote was Schumer suggesting language for an actor – I doubt he is a member

  5. Also, why is Biden pushing this crap again at the moment? They’re down Lautenberg’s vote, and starting this again isn’t going to bring their side out in any greater numbers.

      1. Then we should be tying it into those scandals :) Especially when they go on about Universal Background Checks. Ask them how they’re enjoying their Universal Surveillance Checks! :)

Comments are closed.