BLOOMBERG v. SCHLOSSBERG

…Old playbook or new voice?

All readers (except for a few villagers in Peru) know about the historic Knick comeback this week in Game Four to beat the Spurs. Not all, however, will recall that Mike Bloomberg is now reprising his favored tactic of financing an advertising blitz to make sure his ex-aide, Assemblyman Micah Lasher, wins the Democratic primary to succeed retiring Jerry Nadler.

I rarely mention Bloomberg’s $74-to-$100-million war chest as a reason for his 50-48% win in our mayoral contest in 2001 since that’d be unsportsmanlike (and everyone else does).

But because the ex-mayor just put a second $5m into a super PAC to help Lasher prevail, allow me to admit that the imminent June 23 primary has become an itch that needs scratching.

• * * *

Jack Schlossberg, JFK’s only grandson and a social media phenomenon, narrowly led early polls in what became a three-person race — including him, Lasher and Assemblyman Alex Bores, an A.I. expert.

After slightly leading in early polls, however, Schlossberg fell into third place for a couple of reasons: a chunk of Democrats and commentators resented a 33 year-old Kennedy competing against two local electeds (as Massachusetts voters questioned an even younger Ted Kennedy when he won a special election in 1962 to fill his brother’s Senate seat). And a devastating front page NYTimes article last month focused on his supposed goofiness as a social media influencer lacking candidate discipline.

Since that day, Schlossberg has fallen precipitously… to only 11% in the most recent poll against the two rivals in the low 20%s. This week, however, he’s attempting a comeback, deciding to spend some of his family inheritance to amplify his sunny charm and theme of “No-PAC-Jack.”

Is it too late or still possible to pull off a fourth quarter Brunson-OG comeback in the knick-of time?

Until the Miracle of 34th Street Wednesday night, teams ahead by 15 points or more in the last quarter of an NBA finals game won 93 straight times. Make that 93-1 now.

I can only think of one parallel in U.S. Senate history. In 2004, two Wisconsin Democrats with big name recognition and money were far ahead with two weeks to go... tied at about 40% against a lesser known state senator at just 10%. But when Russ Feingold played up his progressive chops, independence, funny ads and debating skills, he ended up winning with 70% of the vote. (Not a typo.)

Can the brainy, idealistic scion replicate that? Depends on three variables:

*first, can he display the content and energy of his most recent debate on NY1 to dominate the final ones?

*second, will voters be resentful when Bloomberg again spends an astonishing amount but this time to help purchase a seat for someone else, risking an insider-outsider divide in a year of public antipathy to politics-as-usual?

*third, will the bellwether NYTimes -- both located within the district and universally read there — continue to disparage or ignore the big name contender? (Recall its obsession with “but-her-emails” in 2016 and focus on Biden’s age and performance in 2024. Or will they now do even-handed analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of the top candidates?

Voters in the lower 49 should care about this one in a county with about the most educated and wealthy electorate in the U.S., home to major media empires, law firms and financial giants. Will Democrats be swayed by the traditional playbook of “Money Shouts!” or elevate the candidate with the potential to be a major national voice for the post-Trump America?

Past-Future? The NYTimes or Instagram? Bloomberg-Feingold? Let’s humbly appreciate that the finl lap in manyelections is like Olympic speed skating – for seven turns the field seems stuck in place…and then, with a last frantic sprint, some contenders fall, others get elbowed out as one lunges to win by .01 seconds.

As a lifelong New Yorker and recovering politician, I urge all our readers and viewers in the 12th Congressional Distric to turn out to vote for our shared City, Country and Future.