Skip to content, or skip to search.

Skip to content, or skip to search.

The Catch

ShareThis

What Bloomberg would bring to Obama’s ticket would be no less significant. If the central doubt about Obama is his lack of experience (and, in particular, executive experience), Bloomberg would provide a degree of reassurance. Picking him would substantiate and reinforce Obama’s message of pragmatism and post-partisanship. And he would go a long way toward mitigating Obama’s problem with Jewish voters, a dilemma brought on by a combination of his association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the nuthouse rumors that he is a closet Muslim, and his willingness to talk to anti-Israel crackpots such as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Just how serious is that problem? So serious it might put Florida out of Obama’s reach. And Schoen contends it might even give him trouble in states as far-flung and unlikely as Nevada (where the electorate is 3 to 4 percent Jewish—who knew?), Colorado (1 to 2 percent), and Pennsylvania (4 to 5 percent). “For Obama, the question is, how does he get to the states John Kerry carried plus one?” says a Democratic operative. “Given his difficulties in Pennsylvania and Ohio, there’s not a lot of room for error. With Bloomberg on the ticket, Florida is back in play—especially if he’d spend, say, $50 million on Barack’s behalf there.”

For both Obama and McCain, to be sure, there are obvious downsides to pairing up with Bloomberg. A pro-choice, pro-gun-control running mate would only exacerbate the suspicions about McCain on the true-believing right. And the Democratic base would hardly jump for joy at the sight of a plutocratic former Republican (however much of a charade that affiliation always was) hand-in-hand with Obama onstage at the convention in Denver.

More to the point, each candidate has other options that might do more for them than Bloomberg would. Last week came word that McCain would be hosting three viable possibilities at his Arizona ranch for the weekend: Mitt Romney, Florida governor Charlie Crist, and Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. Each would cause fewer headaches for McCain and add geographic and/or substantive balance to the ticket. As for Obama, Bloomberg would do nothing to remedy his shortcomings in the area of national security. Nor would he be the optimal choice to attract the support of white working-class voters, especially female ones. An arguably more powerful case can be made for Virginia senator Jim Webb, the Scot-Irish former secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan; Ohio governor Ted Strickland; or Hillary Clinton, among others.

The premise of the case for MRB, however, is that vice-presidential nominees rarely deliver much directly in terms of votes, let alone states. “When’s the last time you met someone who based their vote on who the V.P. was?” asks one Bloomberg advocate. The main function of a veep choice, goes this line of argument, is branding. What would say more about Obama’s desire to reach beyond traditional categories and transform our politics? What, coming from McCain, would be more of a declaration of independence from the GOP? “The Republican brand is dead, at least for this election,” says Schoen. “McCain needs to go outside the box, and that’s where Mike lives.”

Given his druthers, which of the two would Bloomberg prefer to get the call from? His relationship with McCain has been longer, warmer, dating back many years. McCain endorsed him for mayor in 2001, long before Rudy Giuliani did; Bloomberg has hosted a book party for McCain and visited him at his ranch. But the mayor also likes Obama, seeing eye to eye with the Democrat on many issues, including Obama’s refusal to pander on the gas tax, for which Bloomberg flayed McCain and Clinton.

The real questions are whether Bloomberg would take the V.P. slot and whether he’d open his wallet in the bargain. Sheekey recently remarked on NY1 that “the mayor has said that he may be too far along in life to work for anyone else.” But the truth is, most people around Bloomberg believe that as long as he was given a real portfolio—“Super Duper Treasury secretary” is Schoen’s suggestion—he’d jump at such an entreaty. His decision not to run for the top job reflected no lack of interest, but instead the conclusion that he couldn’t win. As for the cash, Sheekey has suggested that it would be free-flowing. “Listen, Mike Bloomberg spent $83 million in a reelection simply in New York City,” he said on NY1. If he were V.P., the figure would be “between zero and a billion [dollars].”

The billion-dollar number is ridiculous on its face—a bald-faced attempt to cause McCain and Obama to start panting like a pair of hounds. But the impact of even a small fraction of that would be huge. After all the talk last year about a subway series, Clinton versus Giuliani, it would be pretty rich if the New Yorker who wound up on one of the two tickets turned out to be Bloomberg. But even if he doesn’t, that his name is in the veep mix at all says something important about this election: that both putative nominees realize that voters are yearning for a radical departure from the brain-dead, polarizing, base-driven stratagems that have turned the past several presidential cycles into object lessons in democratic dysfunction.

Mike Bloomberg, symbol of American discontent. Will wonders never cease?

E-mail: jheilemann@gmail.com.


Related:

Advertising
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Advertising