Running mate for Michael Bloomberg? (and thoughts about a campaign)

[Simfan34]

WalterMitty made a rather fantastical thread about a Gore/Bloomberg ticket, which doesn't strike me as a bright idea. Nor does the idea of Bloomie, great a man as he is, running (it wouldn't get anywhere), which would almost certainly only end with him being one or two or three billion dollars poorer (assuming that he funded the entirety of his campaign) but let's put the whole idea of "likelihood of happening" aside for a moment (as every candidate not named Hillary Clinton seems to have done anyway) and think about this question. If Michael Bloomberg were to mount a third party bid for the Presidency, who would be the best running mate for him?

Now, if I was asking who I would consider the most appealing running mate in this case (to be honest, I think that's a good part of why I'm asking in the first place), it would (obviously) be Jon Huntsman- I doubt I be more enthusiastic about a ticket than I would be for Bloomberg/Huntsman. But I (again, obviously) am nowhere near the average voter, so the question stands.

Considering that Bloomberg is an astronomically wealthy older white guy (if Jewish), I'm going to guess he'd be best off running with a person who presents a sharp contrast, so someone younger, ideally a woman and a minority. It'd also have to be someone actually willing to run as an independent- Susanna Martinez comes to mind, but I doubt she'd be willing to sign on. I could see Olympia Snowe doing it, but she's neither a minority, nor that much younger than Bloomberg. Condoleezza Rice seems like a good idea but also a bad idea, and I doubt she'd be willing anyway.

The real question is what constituency in this country has a hankering for mildly personalistic leadership and technocratic paternalism, if one can call it that. I certainly would be eager, but I'm not sure too many others would; if someone other than Hillary (and perhaps Gillibrand, I'd say) was the Democrats' candidate there might be something of an opening. Maybe if Bill Gates helped Bloomie out as he has been with other things he'd have more of a chance, but we'd be testing just how much impact money can have (and we'd be veering towards the scenario I present when I try to explain Thaksin's rise to power to people)... I did say we'd put that aside, though- so, thoughts?

[Vega]

It really depends on which side he's going to be challenging, or, if he'll be challenging both. I think Jon Huntsman or Chuck Hagel would be good picks though.

[IceSpear]

Bloomberg/Bloomberg's ego '16!

[Simfan34]

It really depends on which side he's going to be challenging, or, if he'll be challenging both. I think Jon Huntsman or Chuck Hagel would be good picks though.

The best possible chance he'd have would if the Republicans nominated Rand and the Democrats nominated, say, O'Malley. Or Kaine. Or Webb. Or anyone who was either a man, really, or Elizabeth Warren- I imagine Warren would alienate a significant enough portion of the "liberal elites" to weaken her sufficiently (monetarily, at least, if not in real numbers) in a three-way match-up (or against a more moderate Republican, but that's beside the point).

Trying to sketch out who a Bloomberg campaign would target (and I'm wading deep into political demographics, which I'm nowhere near qualified enough to actually do), I'm thinking middle class suburban voters, mainly in Atlas-red states but also sincerely more moderate Republican-leaning voters (I'm thinking of my own town, which is decidedly Republican but I have never seen anyone express particularly concern about guns or espouse birtherism, or perhaps those upper middle class Republicans IndyTexas once described), in most places. Asian-Americans might be a big bloc of support, and while his experience as mayor should probably cast doubt on the idea, I think there could be a chance to make headway amongst middle class and other upwardly mobile Hispanics. So someone like Bill Haslam or John Kasich could help.

Looking at more influential but less numerous groups the Silicon Valley types could be a tossup dependent on how hard to the right Rand would tack in the primaries (but if he didn't he might, might, attract enough support to make CA a tossup). More generally, elites of all types and those in the upper middle class, provided they're neither lefty heirs or heiresses nor overly obsessed about income taxes, would almost certainly  support Bloomberg uniformly, freed from the usual social policy hurdles voting Republican presents (I'm reminded of Dan Loeb's wife, who is involved in pro-choice activism, who once said that she basically had to forbid her husband from backing the ambiguously-pro-life Harold Ford in the 2010 NY Democratic Senate primary).

This might make a difference in the Pacific West and some northeast states, but it's all very variable. If the Democratic candidate is a bad fit for the West, and especially if Rand manages to run a well-managed but "purist" campaign, then I think that Bloomberg would have a real shot. To say nothing of what would be the case if the Republicans nominated some absurd Tea Partier or one of their fellow travellers. A Bloomberg campaign would likely be one of the more class-oriented (not necessarily rhetorically) campaigns we would have seen in recent times. As for maps...

[BaconBacon96]

Bloomberg is not running. He's done nothing in the last year to suggest he is.

[Simfan34]

The short version of that, I guess, is that if Bloomberg managed to effect a result in swing states where, glibly, Democratic support was mostly reduced to urban minorities and hard core liberals, while Republican support was reduced to rural conservatives and exurban Tea Partiers or whatnot, and Bloomberg was able to secure a broadly middle-to-upper class plurality, while resulting in some other odd results as well. So the map could look something like this:

Paul - 187
Bloomberg - 180
Webb - 171

Or it could just as plausibly be this:

Webb - 247
Paul - 167
Bloomberg - 124

And a possibly plausible winning map (I shudder to think of how much this would cost) might look like this:

(is Georgia flipping to the Dems all that probable in such a scenario? Probably not, but I wanted to throw in some "background weirdness"; let's assume this is a high turnout election and Adam's predictions about the potential makeup of Georgia's electorate are accurate enough)

Bloomberg - 274
Paul - 139
Webb - 125

But this is all assuming a perfect storm of sorts; if we threw him into the expected Hillary-Jeb race, even if he spent more than either of them, I'd say he'd only have a shot at Maine, maybe New Hampshire if it was ignored enough. (To include Connecticut would be to overestimate the number of bankers living there.)

Bloomberg is not running. He's done nothing in the last year to suggest he is.

I know. But what's to stop us from wildly speculating? I can just as well dream about how wonderful things would be had dear old Bloomie reached Daley- or Menino-style political longevity, or better yet, become Mayor-for-Life. It's just as serious as an actual bid by Donald Trump or Carly Fiorina or indeed most the lot.

[WalterMitty]

My dream running mate for Bloomberg would be Sheldon Whitehouse or ed Markey.  Politically those wouldn't be too beneficial though.

[Blair]

3rd Party candidates are always something that look great on paper-it seems to a dream of political nuts to have an ideological election where a centrist candidate can float in and save the day. It needs the perfect conditions to work, and as we often find out they do great in the polls in August then when election day comes people float back to their own party.

Bloomberg wouldn't work. He's too old, and too stale. You need someone who would get people out to vote, and make people actually want to work with them. Funding his own campaign would make him an out of touch northeastern for the GOP, and democrats would paint him as someone giving Cruz/Paul the keys to the white house.

Needs a much better candidate, a less partisan election and a worse set of candidates on both sides. Even it's say Carson vs Sanders I could still see Bloomberg getting at best 15%

[Mister Mets]

There seem to be two potential openings for a strong Independent bid:

1. Democrats nominate someone seen as far-left and Republicans nominate someone perceived to be far-right. Elizabeth Warren VS Ted Cruz.

2. The wife of a President VS The son and brother of Presidents.

I don't know if Bloomberg's the right guy given his age and urban roots. But he has the money and experience to be somewhat credible.

His ideal running mate would be someone who seems to be qualified for national office, and credibility with Republicans and Democrats. Blue collar appeal would also be a plus. Jim Webb and Charlie Crist might have a shot. He could also pull a Perot, and pick a respected military figure.

My guess is that centrist officeholders (Brian Sandoval, Claire McCaskill) would turn down the chance as it could hurt their career in later elections.

[Sumner 1868]

Literally nobody will support such a ticket. Third parties are usually for the antiestablishment rather than praising the establishment.

[Blair]

It's interesting that people think there's a need for a centre party in the US, when you've got the democrat party for that

[stegosaurus]

Michael Bloomberg has a personalized ideology that seems as though it was engineered by political scientists to be as universally unappealing as possible. Throw in the elitist New York billionaire angle and it gets worse. Bloomberg is DOA.

If he were to run, he'd probably pick a Wall St. friendly Democrat who is strongly for gun control. What's Joe Lieberman doing these days?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Jim Webb or Evan Bayh seem to fit the mold for a Bloomberg running mate the best. A fellow centrist, but one from either a military background or a rural area.

[WalterMitty]

Jim Webb or Evan Bayh seem to fit the mold for a Bloomberg running mate the best. A fellow centrist, but one from either a military background or a rural area.

uh no.  isnt jim webb very pro-gun? 

[WalterMitty]

maybe another big city mayor of former mayor from a non-northeastern state.

like current sec of transportation anthony foxx?

[Blair]

Third Party candidates need to have some charisma as well, and actually make people want to work for you. Democrats/Republicans can get away without this due to the party machinery, and the fall back support of the Base (Mccain in 2008, Dukakis in 1988).

For all his faults George Wallace shows how a third party candidacy is done-divisive issues, national crisis, charisma and a stroke of luck

[Simfan34]

[Simfan34]

[Fuzzy Bear]

Michael Bloomberg has a personalized ideology that seems as though it was engineered by political scientists to be as universally unappealing as possible. Throw in the elitist New York billionaire angle and it gets worse. Bloomberg is DOA.

If he were to run, he'd probably pick a Wall St. friendly Democrat who is strongly for gun control. What's Joe Lieberman doing these days?

I sort of agree, but he projects competence, and if Donald Trump is to be beaten in 2020, he will have to project to America as incompetent.  Bloomberg, whatever his liabilities, presents oodles of competence, and in politics as well as in business.

Bloomberg needs to run as a Democrat, not as an independent (if he wants to run that badly).  In Bloomberg's case, I'd have him pick an insider who knows his way around Congress.  Someone like Ash Carter or Tom Perez comes to mind.  The "outsider" theme isn't what would propel Trump's 2020 challenger to victory.  "Insider competence" will be the theme in 2020 for Trump's opposition, provided it's in demand.