Michael Bloomberg/Barack Obama

Great Debates
1

I know Obama, a Democrat is going all out for president and Bloomberg, an Independent, isn’t even in the race, but I was wondering, on paper, how this pairing would do? What are the positives or negatives in terms of electability, styles and/or giving the country what we know it wants to see in terms of experience, nonpartisanship and what they’re used to seeing in the White House.

For instance, what if Bloomberg, after watching the Democratic catfighting take away some political capital and if the Republican nominate Huckabee or Romney, and if Bloomberg could overcome a near lack of national name recognition, could he persuade Obama to join him? Would this work.

All else aside, if we analyze this on paper, how well would this ticket work?

2

Personally, I don’t have time right now to sit down and write out a pro and con list, but I’ll say this. I think Barack Obama has a very real chance of winning the whole shebang - and interesting side note would be an Obama/Bloomberg ticket.

3

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Personally, I don’t have time right now to sit down and write out a pro and con list, but I’ll say this. I think Barack Obama has a very real chance of winning the whole shebang - and interesting side note would be an Obama/Bloomberg ticket.
[/QUOTE]
That would also be a very interesting lineup. I look forward to hearing you analysis of both and how they would work.

This Bloomberg thought only occurred to me as I was thinking about the negatives of Giuliani as president, although that seems not about to happen.

I live in NYC and, unlike RG, I find a lot to like about Bloomberg (I didn’t at first but his actions have won me over). He has heavy, successful executive experience; has done well as mayor of a major American city; during his term, while he’s continued and built on some of the successes of RG, while his lack of apparent partisanship and fractiousness has smoothed over rifts and divisiveness, etc. created during the Giuliani days

These things, especially his experience (combined with Obama, who could "train for '12) and the fact, let’s face it, he’s white (though Jewish) would add a lot of positives.

4

I have yet to figure out what Michael Bloomberg’s appeal is supposed to be. He has no great personal charm or magnetism, he has no hot-button issue to rally people around, (and a third party candidate needs one desperately), and he has no regional base.

All he has is a lot of money that he’s free to flush down the toilet on a losing campaign, if he so desires.

5

[QUOTE=astorian]
I have yet to figure out what Michael Bloomberg’s appeal is supposed to be. He has no great personal charm or magnetism, he has no hot-button issue to rally people around, (and a third party candidate needs one desperately), and he has no regional base.

All he has is a lot of money that he’s free to flush down the toilet on a losing campaign, if he so desires.
[/QUOTE]

I’d like this explained to me as well. I lived in Boston and I know sweet F.A. about Bloomberg. Nobody outside of political junkies and East Coasters have even heard of him. He has a lot of money… so what? So did Ross Perot.

Perot and Nader were well-known to the American public before they ran. How the hell does this dude expect to be a serious candidate, jumping into the fray so late? After Nader drawing votes away from Gore and ultimately costing him the election, I think the appeal of third party candidates has gone by the wayside.

Even if I was the sort to consider voting for a third-party candidate, I’d be offended by Bloomberg’s dawdling on the decision to run. How does he expect the nation to get to know him and his positions so late in the game?

And let’s be honest - a lot of Americans have a NYC bias, not to mention the fact that he has the charisma of a cheese sandwich. Oh, and you know what else? His name is Bloomberg.

6

[QUOTE=astorian]
I have yet to figure out what Michael Bloomberg’s appeal is supposed to be.
[/QUOTE]

Simple. If the choices the major parties put forward are Hillary and, say, Huckabee or Romney, there will be a large segment of voters looking for a “none of the above” choice.

7

[QUOTE=astorian]
I have yet to figure out what Michael Bloomberg’s appeal is supposed to be. He has no great personal charm or magnetism, he has no hot-button issue to rally people around, (and a third party candidate needs one desperately), and he has no regional base.
[/QUOTE]

He’s calm, competent, not a self-aggrandizing asshole, and he gets shit done. He doesn’t pander to anyone and tells it like it is. He seems to be interested in doing good for the City for the sake of doing good, not for the power or trappings of power.

Indeed, a large part of his appeal may be that, as you note: “He has no great personal charm or magnetism, he has no hot-button issue to rally people around.” He isn’t pushing any one great big idea, but rather seems to be doing what he feels in a pretty unbiased way is right for the City, quietly working to resolve issues, rather than blustering through them on his charisma. A significant part of his charm is that he is so low-key and unassuming despite his great wealth.

He is a distinct change from his predecessor, whose over-inflated ego shined brightly through in virtually everything he did. As Mayor, Giuliani had (and no doubt still has, and would have to an exponentially greater degree in higher office) a classic case of “bride at every wedding, corpse at every funeral” syndrome. He could not stand if any of his subordinates got any credit for anything that happened in his administration. He fired Bill Bratton as Police Commissioner because the media was portraying the City’s dropping crime levels as Bratton’s achievment rather than Giuliani’s. (Bratton, of course, would later go on to reform the previously believed to be un-reformable LAPD.) Frequently, Giuliani would seem to govern by whim, rather than by policy. Bloomberg is just the opposite.

I think that a Obama would not choose Bloomberg for several reasons. The primary reason is that the choice would not address Obama’s perceived experience (particularly international relations experience) deficiency. Second, it wouldn’t be a good geographic balance, as both are from large Northern cities. Third, Bloomberg has joked about being unelectable as “a short, New York Jew,” (notably, a liberal, Reform Jew, not a moralistic Orthodox Jew who might have some crossover appeal to the social conservatives, like some other Vice Presidential nominee I prefer to forget about) and considering the demographic sensitivities that an Obama nomination would stir up, I doubt that Obama would seek out someone of Bloomberg’s demographics.

That being said, I love Bloomberg as Mayor, and think he would be great in higher office.

8

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Simple. If the choices the major parties put forward are Hillary and, say, Huckabee or Romney, there will be a large segment of voters looking for a “none of the above” choice.
[/QUOTE]
That was sort of my reason for even positing this hypothetical. The Democrats have needed to learn how to get down and dirty for a long time, but I think they’re doing it at the wrong time and wasting a lot of natural goodwill that could cost them the election if they’re not careful.

As far as Bloomberg being unknown, I didn’t know anything about Bill Richardson or Ron Paul before this (long ass) election cycle began either. Not being in it from the beginning (god, when was that?) and tiring out and turning off everybody could be a good thing.

I think Bloomberg brought up the “unelectable Jew” thing so, in a sense, he could own it and get it out of the way or at least put it on the table. While that is a valid reason to believe the electorate would hesitate to consider him, we also have Barack and Clinton and the (deluded) talk that we’re past identity politics. (Why people are surprised that race is still surfacing as a topic of discussion as we go through this process is beyond me.)

Billdo has also eloquently elaborated on the positives of Bloomberg that I’d mentioned which, by and large, ought to be the important positives (and make him as viable a candidate as Giuliani, if not more so) to discuss, beyond whether doing so at all indicates a NYC bias. I’m solidly Democratic but can also see Bloomberg as a true leader, as a opposed to being an elected official with a love of power and a personal bias in applying it. I’m looking at you, Bush, and you, Giuliani.

[QUOTE=astorian]
I have yet to figure out what Michael Bloomberg’s appeal is supposed to be. He has no great personal charm or magnetism, he has no hot-button issue to rally people around, (and a third party candidate needs one desperately), and he has no regional base.

All he has is a lot of money that he’s free to flush down the toilet on a losing campaign, if he so desires.
[/QUOTE]
The money thing could, to a certain degree, describe Romney also, although he has been in the race and out there letting the voters know who he is, good and bad. I can totally see what you’re saying in your first paragraph, but if he jumps in, I’m sure he’ll be aware of that too, and ready to work on those issues.

Phlosphr, I’d still love to know what you think. I think Obama has a real chance of winning it all also, but it’s a long way until November.

9

The “Jew thing” is not so much his religion alone … yes, among a Morman, a woman, and a Black man, being Jewish this cycle isn’t per se that far out there … but a rich New York Jew? … that’s not something that the midsection of America will rally round.

Yes, I know that as a Jew myself I sound like Blacks who see Obama’s prospects as fantasical, but let’s be real - that goes to the heart of the Jewish cabal stereotypes and those are still held by many.

10

[QUOTE=DSeid]
The “Jew thing” is not so much his religion alone … yes, among a Morman, a woman, and a Black man, being Jewish this cycle isn’t per se that far out there … but a rich New York Jew? … that’s not something that the midsection of America will rally round.

Yes, I know that as a Jew myself I sound like Blacks who see Obama’s prospects as fantasical, but let’s be real - that goes to the heart of the Jewish cabal stereotypes and those are still held by many.
[/QUOTE]
Point well taken. Thanks for reminding me.

11

What would a Bloomberg/Obama platform look like anyway? My impression of Bloomberg is that aside from general denouncements of partisanship, he mostly stays out of the big, controversial national issues. If nobody knows what he thinks about Iraq, the economy and things like that, they won’t care if he’s Jewish, divorced or from New York.

At the moment, it doesn’t look like Huckabee or Romney is going to get nominated, so that leaves less room in the middle for someone like Bloomberg.

12

Bloomberg would have a tough time in concert is that Bloomberg is just about immune to the needs of the lower and middle-class presiding over a lot of Eminent Domain putting up High-Rise condos while pushing out the people that already live there. For a populist campaign like Obama’s Bloomberg would hurt his campaign and it would ultimately hurt Obama’s credibility to be seen with such a big business candidate.

13

[QUOTE=mswas]
Bloomberg would have a tough time in concert is that Bloomberg is just about immune to the needs of the lower and middle-class presiding over a lot of Eminent Domain putting up High-Rise condos while pushing out the people that already live there. For a populist campaign like Obama’s Bloomberg would hurt his campaign and it would ultimately hurt Obama’s credibility to be seen with such a big business candidate.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe this is true about Bloomberg at all. To me, his focus, especially at the beginning of his term, was to spur business and job growth. Yes, eminent domain has kicked in in many instances, but in a flourishing economy that happens and using ED to further enrich the wealthy wasn’t Bloomberg’s focus.

I think the Bruce Ratner/Sports stadium/destruction of a stable neighborhood debacle was the result of many, many palms being greased, here in New York as well as upstate.

I say this as person who holds the lease on a rent stabilized apartment. Gentrification (due to a booming economy and housing stock being stretched to the limits) and the resultant efforts to push me out, have less to do with a Bloomberg agenda than from greedy landlords, jittery homeowners who sell out at the drop of an extra dime and just market forces in general.

14

Sorry, I had to hit submit too soon. I do think there are differences between them and started this thread to talk about them, but his being a “big business” candidate is not one of them. Especially if you mean big business as in a “Washington, politicians, business as usual” way.

[QUOTE=Marley23]
What would a Bloomberg/Obama platform look like anyway? My impression of Bloomberg is that aside from general denouncements of partisanship, he mostly stays out of the big, controversial national issues. If nobody knows what he thinks about Iraq, the economy and things like that, they won’t care if he’s Jewish, divorced or from New York.

At the moment, it doesn’t look like Huckabee or Romney is going to get nominated, so that leaves less room in the middle for someone like Bloomberg.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right and my suggesting this was in the event there is an eventual middle ground to grab onto. I suspect that this is why Bloomberg is waiting (and hoping it’s also to give the impression he’s interested in actively finishing as much of his term as he can if he does).

If McCain is nominated, this discussion and any others re the Democrats changes drastically. However, I like that Bloomberg has, so far, stayed out of national issues and, instead of using the mayoralty to run for president, has focused on the job he has now. If he jumps in, he’ll surely get his views on all of these things out there quickly; he definitely has the money and political knowhow to do so.

I agree with everybody who says he’s dry as week old rye bread, hasn’t had much foreign policy experience, and doesn’t look very presidential. I also agree that these two names together isn’t something that would instantly come to mind, even in the real world. It’s just that this is the first election that I’m this excited about who gets both nominations and excited that a third party candidate might get in the mix in a good way and wanted to explore it.

15

5-4 Fighting What income bracket are you in may I ask? Very few people who make less than 40,000 per year like Bloomberg. I pay nearly 30,000 per year for my apartment for the privilege of living in Bed-Stuy. In all fairness my apartment is big, but you can’t really get a 2 bedroom within a mile of Manhattan for less than $ 2000 anymore. What that is, is the pushing out of the poor and middle-class. That’s Barack Obama’s turf that he’d have to give up for Bloomberg. Yes, it is the fault of landlords, but a lot of people associate it with Bloomberg. I forget the name of the guy who was in charge of a lot of the eminent domain stuff, but a lot of people associate that with Bloomberg. Cops can’t stand Bloomies either.

16

DSeid I don’t think that Rothschild Jewish cabal stuff is quite as prevalent as you think, but maybe I’m wrong. I don’t think people will passionately dislike him, I think it’s more that there is nothing that will make people passionately like him.

5-4 Fighting Bloomberg isn’t a big business candidate because he’s corrupt or even corruptible, but he is a big business candidate because that’s where he’s from. He’s from the street, Wall Street. He has presided over turning Manhattan into a rich person’s ghetto. Other than rent control and public housing, Manhattan is a rich ghetto, as is the entire water’s edge of Brooklyn, Queens and coming up in the Bronx.

17

[QUOTE=astorian]
I have yet to figure out what Michael Bloomberg’s appeal is supposed to be. He has no great personal charm or magnetism, he has no hot-button issue to rally people around, (and a third party candidate needs one desperately), and he has no regional base.

All he has is a lot of money that he’s free to flush down the toilet on a losing campaign, if he so desires.
[/QUOTE]

Well, good government and responsible stewardship aren’t really sexy but its better than what we have had for the last 7 years and probably better than what we would have with a partisan in the white house.

18

[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Well, good government and responsible stewardship aren’t really sexy but its better than what we have had for the last 7 years and probably better than what we would have with a partisan in the white house.
[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. This isn’t the 1990’s. The country is facing a number of serious challenges – Islamic terrorism, Iraq, recession, global warming, oil prices, the deficit. The last thing we need is a “steady as she goes” steward in the White House.

Partisanship is good for the country. It means that people have real choices at the voting booth and puts a wider range of opinions in play. Frankly, a lot of us think that the reason so many things are fucked up right now is because modern conservatism has FAILED as an approach to governance. Trickle-down has failed. Militarism has failed. A laissez-faire approach to the environment has failed. The free market approach to health care has failed. I don’t want some millionaire bureaucrat who’ll spend the next four years treading water. I want a liberal leader who will work with the increasingly liberal Congress to get the country back on track.

19

[QUOTE=mswas]
5-4 Fighting What income bracket are you in may I ask? Very few people who make less than 40,000 per year like Bloomberg. I pay nearly 30,000 per year for my apartment for the privilege of living in Bed-Stuy. In all fairness my apartment is big, but you can’t really get a 2 bedroom within a mile of Manhattan for less than $ 2000 anymore. What that is, is the pushing out of the poor and middle-class. That’s Barack Obama’s turf that he’d have to give up for Bloomberg. Yes, it is the fault of landlords, but a lot of people associate it with Bloomberg. I forget the name of the guy who was in charge of a lot of the eminent domain stuff, but a lot of people associate that with Bloomberg. Cops can’t stand Bloomies either.
[/QUOTE]
I definitely fall into the lower end of any category of renters who would be subject to being pushed out due to the current state of the rental market in New York. You describe your situation in terms of proximity to Manhattan and how close you can live to it. Quality rentals have always been at a premium. Remember Manhattan island is only so big and market prices will reflect this scarcity of available space and rentals, especially is an economy that has been doing as well as New York’s in the last few years. As much as I deplore the fact, a good example would be the changing face of Harlem. I would love for it to keep the flavor and character it has had for a long time, but I accept that times, economies and what are considered “hot spots” always change.

So, while it is true that a cursory look at the changing housing market would lead one to think Bloomberg is pushing this, if one were to really check out Bloomberg’s true economic policies, I don’t think this would be a sticking point in a theoretical Bloomberg/Obama partnership at all.

I’m not sure but is Dan Doctoroff the guy you’re thinking of in regards to eminent domain?

Cops can’t stand Bloomberg because he doesn’t blindly support their side before the facts are in, when citizens/suspects are shot and/or killed, like a certain former mayor we know. Also, he stood tough in the last round of negotiations with the PBA (rightfully or wrongfully).

20

I don’t live in New York, I live right next door in Connecticut, and from what I know of my friends and collegues in New York they are divided down the middle. Some love him and others don’t. Of my upper east side friends I think they believe Bloomberg would make a great veep, however, for reasons like Bildo and mswas said, he would have a hard time enticing the Luv-Handle Americans to come to his side and see what he stands for. Does that make any sense? His demographic is not the run of the mill jack and jane American, it’s the upper tier folk.

After SC and Barack crushing the others and getting endorsements from the Kennedys and others, he’s going to have to get a Latino Big Gun and some middle American endorsments to be able to keep up the momentum. I really hope he does, but in my opinion I think a ticket with Obama and Bloomberg would ultimately not work.