Gore-Bloomberg?

[Epee_Pox]

So Mike Bloomberg has asked his team to re-explore his potential independent candidacy by March, which is when he'd have to announce.

Now, he doesn't stand a big chance on his own, because as an independent there's no way he'd get a majority of the Electoral College votes, even if he did amazingly well at the polls. And even if he did so well that nobody else got a majority in the Electoral College, either, that would just make Congress decide who won, with each state's delegation getting one vote. And they're not going to break party lines to vote for the independent guy.

But what if Al Gore led him on the ticket? It's not as crazy as it sounds. Gore despises Hillary, always has. He is on the record as being remarkably disappointed in Edwards, who he thinks hurt Kerry's campaign last time around. And he's not about to endorse Obama, because he doesn't want a repeat of what happened when he endorsed Dean right before his campaign blew out. So Gore's not going to endorse any current Democrat candidates, at least not without holding his nose.

And Gore's become an international celebrity with, rightly or wrongly, a significant amount of perceived gravitas. A huge number of Democrat voters still love the guy.

And Bloomberg is very appealing to the same moderates who might otherwise vote for McCain or Giuliani.

Combine the two of them in an independent ticket, and they may well draw off such significant numbers from the two major parties, that they could in fact gain a majority in the Electoral College. And, failing that, with a popular-vote win, congressional Democrats would have a hard time NOT voting for Gore in the more likely event that the election went to Congress. Their base would crucify them otherwise, after the last eight years of screaming that Gore wuz robbed.

So what do you think -- would it be smart for Gore to team up with Bloomberg for an independent run?

And would you vote for that ticket?

[oiuyt]

I don't see Bloomberg being too interested in a second-fiddle run.

Especially not self-financed.

I see something like Bloomberg-Hagel as a significantly more likely ticket.

-B

[Miglin]

Likely? No. Viable? Very. I'll just have to fantasize to myself about this "dream team" of candidates, as the current ones are all terrible.

EDIT: Even Kucinich disappointed me this week by endorsing Obama.

[Lemonaide]

Who's Bloomberg? Tell us about him. It sounds like an interesting team name, I like it so far.

[trafl926]

Even more(or less) likely would be Gore jumping on as a Democrat(if he still can, not sure) and running with them leading to possible Obama/Gore, Gore/Obama ticket.

[OROD]

Seriously, I have no idea why anyone would even consider voting for Obama. Since when did the presidency become an entry level job?

.

[Inquartata]

Apparently people have decided that given Bush credentials are not very predictive of performance. It's a leap from this to assuming that lack of credentials is likely to result in a better outcome. But hate will make even rational people do some pretty foolish things.

[OROD]

But hate will make even rational people do some pretty foolish things.

Hate, or, stupidity?

.

[Epee_Pox]

And hatred of what? I didn't see what that line had to do with the rest of Inq's post.

[trafl926]

Seriously, I have no idea why anyone would even consider voting for Obama. Since when did the presidency become an entry level job?

.

Lincoln was also a first term senator, plus Obama's got the charisma of JFK.


He's doomed.

[OROD]

...plus Obama's got the charisma of JFK.

Are you serious? Every time he's on TV I have to change the channel he's so fugly.

.

[Inquartata]

Hate, or, stupidity?

.

Why must it be one or the other?

And hatred of what? I didn't see what that line had to do with the rest of Inq's post.

Hatred of Bush, or of his policies and the damage they are thought to have done.

That is, if credentials/experience are though valuable, but Bush had credentials and experience, and was still "the worst President in history", some might conclude not that credentials and experience are necessary but not sufficient, but rather that they are not necessary...

[keith]

.......... some might conclude not that credentials and experience are necessary but not sufficient, but rather that they are not necessary...

... and some might conclude that it is the nature of the credentials and experience that matter

[Inquartata]

Sure. But Obama doesn't have many of any sort. Yet he's still very popular.

I'm quite discouraged. Richardson has withdrawn from the race. He had about the best credentials of any of them...

So, would Clinton-Obama---a woman and a black---be a miracle or a disaster? Thoughts?

[Gav]

So, would Clinton-Obama---a woman and a black---be a miracle or a disaster? Thoughts?

What's the colour of their skin or their sex got to do with anything?

[Epee_Pox]

What's the colour of their skin or their sex got to do with anything?

Careful, you're starting to sound like a Republican. For their party at least, it has everything to do with everything.

[Gav]

Careful, you're starting to sound like a Republican. For their party at least, it has everything to do with everything.

Sorry EP I don't follow.

[Epee_Pox]

Ah, there's a whole "politics of identity" thing that has been a potent part of Democrat party platforms and strategy. At essence, it aims to garner votes from people who happen to be black or female, who are expected to vote en masse according to their race or sex. Individual differences are subsumed by the overwhelming homogeneity of race- or sex-specific positions on issues and candidates. Hence phrases like "the black vote" or "the female vote," which tend to lump one-tenth and one-half of the population, respectively, into singleminded blocs where all members have the same position on issues.

This tends to be a much more important part of Democrat strategizing and speechifying than Republican. Hence my snarky comment. (It's been a while since I've been snarky on this forum, so I may be out of practice.)

[Inquartata]

"The first black President" or "The first woman President" is a long-awaited event here, highly anticipated by many, primarily Democrats or liberals, as EP noted. OTOH, both are looked at rather askance by some---closet racists and sexists, religious conservatives, and so forth. So in effect I am asking whether people think that such a ticket would draw greater support or greater opposition from the electorate; which effect would win out...