Bloomberg: Who would be his running mate?

[onenote]

I have to admit that after dismissing the idea of a Bloomberg candidacy initially, I am now more intrigued by it. I can't imagine that I would abandon the Democratic party nominee, but I'm trying to assess how serious a Bloomberg bid might be and how it might impact the election.

Ultimately, one of the most important factors in determining how Bloomberg might do will be who he is able to get as a running mate if he declares as an independent.

John Anderson had pretty strong numbers when he first declared, but they declined over time as people stopped taking his candidacy seriously. One of his problems was his inability to get a running mate that brought anything to the ticket. In fact, I challenge you to name ANderson's running mate without looking it up.

Perot also had good numbers and managed to finish with nearly 19 percent of the popular vote nationally (and to come in second in two states). But he sank his campaign with his selection of James Stockdale -- a political unknown who blew up his chances in the VP debate.

So if Bloomberg runs a lot will be riding on who he can get to join him as a running mate. I don't see any of the major Democratic party figures abandoning the party's nominee to go for it with a candidate whose only elected position was as a repub. And I don't see any of the current crop of repub leaders leaping onto a Bloomberg campaign. Maybe a Susan Collins? But that's a pretty northeast-centric ticket.

Any speculation?

[MNDemNY]

1. Gore/bloomberg check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1148099

[onenote]

2. FIrst, if he runs, Al isn't running for the number two spot. Second, Al won't run as an indie

Bloomberg changes parties the way most people change socks. So his running as an indie is no big deal to him. But Al Gore is a lifelong Democrat. The son of a lifelong Democrat. If he runs, he runs as a Democrat, period. And its absurd to imagine that Gore, having served eight years in the HOuse, eight years in the Senate, eight years as VP, and having run for and narrowly lost (well sort of) the presidency, would take second position behind a guy who's political experience is five years as Mayor of NYC.

[MNDemNY]

5. No, NO, Al on top, Dem ticket.

[aquart]

3. Discuss it at the Independent Underground.

Bet you can get a great discussion going with Joe, Ralph, and Ross.

[onenote]

6. I'm not supporting his candidacy, I'm trying to assess its impact

Putting our heads in the sand won't help. There are reports of Bloomberg doing well in initial polling. Those polls are generally worthless given that most people couldn't pick Bloomberg out of a two-man lineup. But if there is well financed third party candidate out there, we need to be thinking about who will be attracted to it and how serious it would be for our candidate.

[MADem]

4. Chuck Hagel. From a May 15 article...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18678886/

WASHINGTON - Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's (R) recent remark on CBS' "Face the Nation" that he would consider running on an independent presidential ticket with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) is intriguing because they complement each other so well.

Bloomberg offers up the executive experience that voters tend to prefer for president. Also, keep in mind that the last two sitting members of Congress elected president were John Kennedy and Warren Harding. Hagel has foreign policy and military experience, punctuated by an impressive record as a combat (and seriously wounded) infantryman in Vietnam.

[onenote]

7. not sure how "complementing " each other works out

Hagel: zero rating from NARAL, 100 percent from Christian Coalition, near zero on environment, under 40 percent from NEA, top grade from NRA -- he'd be anathema to a lot of the groups that typically back Democrats, while Bloomberg will be anathema to a lot of the groups that support repubs. Does the ticket pick up support from both or neither?

[MADem]

9. On those very issues you cite--Bloomberg--pro-choice, secular Jew, has made a number of

NYC green initiatives (parks, taxis, the eight bucks to drive in NYC thing), a fiend on improving schools, founder of Mayors against Illegal Guns....

Hell, everyone else plays the Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink game--I'm betting these guys will too. Though there's one other possible way they might play it, by simply acknowledging that they aren't on the same page on every issue, and won't be, but...so what?


I'd laugh like hell if he breaks paradigm, and does not REQUIRE his VP to abdicate all of his long-held and cherished views, like most candidates do, to appear "united" on a ticket. That sort of flip flopping (Bush 41 rolling over on choice for Reagan, e.g.) always looks like a prison rape to me--very unpleasant, humiliatiing and soul-crushing to the idiot who forsakes his views in favor of ambition.

It would be interesting if Bloomberg played it that way--these are my views, my VP isn't on the same page, but what that means is that I will be exposed to the views of the other side....it's a concept...!

Per Cook:

Initial polling suggests that Bloomberg could make a respectable run as an independent and pull evenly from the two major parties. But getting from respectable to upwards of 40 percent would require cutting into the marrow of at least one, if not both, parties.

This would mean that his candidacy would likely be contingent upon each party nominating either badly flawed or damaged candidates. After all, with his money, Bloomberg wouldn't need to decide until late February, after the nominations are likely to be determined.

The most interesting scenario would be if Bloomberg were to win a plurality of the electoral votes and siphon off enough votes from the left to push the Democratic nominee into third place. Could a Democratic House really pick a third-place finisher to be president, or might they opt for a politically compatible independent who finished first?

[NV Whino]

8. Why, our favorite Independent, of course,

Joe Lieberman.

[CK_John]

10. Melinda Gates. n/t

[Like It Is]

11. Bloomberg: Who would be his running mate?

Who cares, he won't be anything but another Ross Perot. I don't care how much money he has.

[onenote]

13. ross perot came in second in two states and probably would've done better

if (1) he hadn't picked a total basket case as his running mate and (2) hadn't waffled on whether he really was running for a couple of months just prior to the election.

Its not an issue of whether Bloomberg can win. Its an issue of how he might impact the outcome of the race, either by hurting either the repub or Democratic ticket or, in an extreme case, picking up enough support to throw the election into the House of representatives. (ALl that might take is his winning a single state, something that Perot came within eight points of doing in 1992).

[Zynx]

17. If Perot could get 20% of the vote while being completely insane

a better financed, better established, sane independent could do better than that.

[rucky]

12. JACK BAUER n/t

[leftofthedial]

14. Joe Lieberman

[bunnies]

15. Ron Paul? hehe. Now that would be interesting. nt

[Squigglenob]

16. Carrot Top, natch. n/t