The gist is, Moskowitz wants to run and the tabloids, hedge fundies and charter shills/education reformers want her to run too.
Her record at Success would likely to stake her the early backing of the city's tabloids, along with the families in her charter school network who are typically Moskowitz supporters, as well as other parents of children in charters across the city.
But charter parents do not constitute a significant voting bloc, and turnout is often low among charter families, leaving observers to wonder whether she can cultivate a base of support outside the reform movement.
At the most recent Sun Valley conference — an annual gathering of the country’s most influential CEOs and financiers — Moskowitz described herself as a “single-issue" voter, focused on the issue of education reform.
“Can she translate success as a charter school operator into a broader education agenda, let alone other issues?” asked David Bloomfield, a professor of education at CUNY’s Graduate Center and Brooklyn College.
And then of course there's this:
Moskowitz is not exactly what political consultants would call "relatable."
In 2005, when she gave up her seat on the City Council to run for Manhattan borough president, the New York Times editorial board praised her as "smart and driven and an expert on education issues," but ultimately concluded "her style — often described by those who have worked with her as abrasive — would not be well suited to this office." (The paper endorsed Scott Stringer, who won with 26 percent of the vote to Moskowitz's 17 percent.)
As an employer, Moskowitz straddles the line between exacting and oppressive. She's infamously demanding of her teachers and employees, rattling off a constant stream of emails about school improvements and test scores, and current and former Success teachers have described anxiety and fear in their schools when Moskowitz has come to visit.
Political consultants who have worked with her in the past have said her lack of likability and temperament have been a problem.
Well, that problem has only gotten bigger during her Success Years, especially after the NY Times piece that exposed the "Kids Too Afraid To Go To The Bathroom So They Soil Themselves" reputation the place has.
On top of that, the unions will go out of their way to knock her out, as they did in the 2005 race for Manhattan Borough President.
Shapiro writes that a Moskowitz run is not a done deal until Eva's convinced she's got a shot:
She is expected to begin intensive internal polling and carefully track de Blasio's favorability in the coming months, her allies say privately.
If those numbers seem insurmountable, Moskowitz can simply say she wants to supervise Success’ expansion plans. But even the sliver of an opening could prove tempting.
I fully expect the charter/reform people to look to take de Blasio out in 2017, but I am not convinced Eva's going to be their candidate.
I think someone like Hakeem Jeffries - reformer-friendly, but without the abrasive personality and baggage Moskowitz has - is the kind of candidate they'll look to in 2017.
Even then, there's no guarantee any of this happens - Jeffries may not want to leave Congress, Eva may decide she can't win, de Blasio may turn things around on the PR front and leave other potential challengers with a hard road to victory.
De Blasio's appearance on Morning Joe yesterday appears to have quieted critic Joe Scarborough, for example.
That's the sort of thing that is very, very important for de Blasio to survive in a city where both tabloids have it out for him, the governor wants to shiv him and the elites want Bloomberg Mach IV.
We'll see - we're really a year away from any kind of definitive movement in this other than PR.
But if the poll numbers don't turn soon, we could be looking at a pro-charter, pro-reform, anti-union mayor in 2017.