VP talk picks up: Warner and Bloomberg are latest target of speculation

May 24, 2008

Vice-presidential rumors have been in the air for months, but they have been picking up this past week, as both candidates step up their vice-presidential committees, conduct interviews or just start assembling files on potential running mates.

Obama is at a much earlier stage of the process than McCain is, though it is certainly possible to draw a comprehensive list of names are are being considered, though the Hillary question still looms large. Today, Robert Novak’s column mentioning the possibility of Mark Warner being selected launched a round of speculation about the chances of the former Virginia Governor who once seemed like a sure presidential candidate. Novak wrote that, “Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a strong favorite to be elected to the Senate this year, has told associates that he is being considered as Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate.”

Warner is now running for Virginia’s open Senate seat, and he is the overwhelming favorite to win that race (this seat has been ranked the most vulnerable Senate seat for months now). Warner’s involvement in the senatorial race was supposed to take him out of vice-presidential chatter. After all, when Warner accepted the candidacy, his name was already circulating as a possible VP pick so he was aware of that possibility, making his choice somewhat of a renunciation of the vice-presidency. After all, if Warner were to drop out of the Senate race right now, it would transform the Democrats’ best pick-up opportunity into an at best uncertain endeavor.

This would suggest that the Obama campaign would not dare to consider Warner’s candidacy, but if they decide that Warner is what they need on the ticket to carry Virginia, they probably will not have much scruples in undermining the DSCC. Nor will Warner automatically reject an offer that would put him on the path to the presidency in 2012 or 2016. And as if to confirm that Warner’s name is truly in consideration, Politico ’s article today on the “Virginia trio” (Kaine, Webb and Warner) argues that Warner would be the strongest of the Virginia candidates, and the one that would help Obama carry the state the most. So 13 electoral votes or a Senate seat?

Meanwhile, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg continues to entertain the most confusion three months after announcing he would not attempt a presidential run. Since then, Bloomberg has been attempting to please all sides, introducing both Obama and McCain at events a few weeks from one another. Despite the fact that there has been more speculation as to the possibility that Obama might tap Bloomberg as his running mate, since the two would reinforce each other’s postpartisan message and as there had been reports of talks between Bloomberg’s entourage and Obama’s, it is the McCain-Bloomberg ticket that currently has the most buzz. The two had breakfast on May 17th, and NYMag is quite certain that they talked about vice-presidential prospects. Marc Ambinder confirms the seriousness of these talks.

McCain selecting Bloomberg has quite obvious drawbacks and advantages. For one, it would seriously undercut Obama’s core message of reform and post-partisanship if the politician with the most post-partisan positioning were to rally his rival; McCain would also strengthen his own independent image. Second, it would give McCain much more credibility on the economy, an issue on which McCain has difficulties. Third, Bloomberg has money, lots of it — and the GOP needs as much as it can get this year. But it could also create problems to have someone as moderate as Bloomberg on the ticket when many conservatives already distrust the Arizona Senator. After all, electing someone to the vice-presidency gives them a heads-up for the next race to the White House. He would also not improve McCain’s numbers in any particular state. Finally, Bloomberg is not the most charismatic politician — to say the least — and he would not certainly not be an effective attack dog, in what is usually a VP’s most urgent role.

4 Comments | Bloomberg, VA-Sen, VP-Dem, VP-GOP | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

Endorsement watch: Surprising no one, Bloomberg aims to please all sides

April 11, 2008

Just a few weeks ago, Mike Bloomberg introduced Barack Obama at an event, prompting speculation that the Mayor of New York might jump on the Democrat’s bandwagon. The two had met for a a highly publicized breakfast in November, and Bloomberg’s brand of non-partisan governance is often described as similar to the one Obama champions on the trail, making the two a complementary pair.

But Bloomberg did not need a lot of time to remind us of how much his non-partisanship resembles that of those business executives who donate campaign contributions to all parties and all candidates to cover all their bases. Earlier this month, Bloomberg claimed that he was good friends with all the candidates and would consider working for any of them.

Yesterday, he introduced John McCain at an economic roundtable in Brooklyn. Explaining that “no matter what your political affiliation or your views are, [McCain] really deserves to have the term hero attached to his name,” Bloomberg described McCain as being responsible for his 2001 election (Giuliani will appreciate that): “If the people of New York are happy, they should say thank you to you.”

These declarations are hardly surprising when we consider Bloomberg’s political career. A registered Democrat, he switched party affiliations because he knew he would have an easier time seizing the GOP’s mayoral nomination. Last year, he became an independent while considering whether he should make a 3rd party bid for the White House — though he continues to help the state Republican Party campaign for state Senate seats. Little principle, and lots of opportunism.

The other figure to be sparking endorsement talk these days is Elizabeth Edwards. One of the most surprising developments of the 2008 primaries has been John Edwards’s refusal to rally Obama after he withdrew in late January. If anything, many reports have been suggesting that Edwards had been more swayed by Clinton’s courtship and angered by what he might have seen as Obama’s dismissiveness. We can only speculate as to what explains Edwards’s reluctance to endorse, but one obvious reason that I have proposed time and time again has been the health care debate:

Given how Edwards centered his own campaign on his health care plan, it would have been very difficult for him to jump on the Obama wagon at a time when the most important policy differences between the two remaining Democrats was the debate on mandates, which Edwards supports. Elizabeth Edwards confirmed that this is the most plausible hypothesis this week in an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America

“In order to ensure that we have universal coverage, we need to say everybody has to join. So, for that reason, the mandates that Sen. Clinton is talking about, I think are going to be more successful in achieving the goal.” Making her comparison even more explicit, Edwards concluded “I just have more confidence in Sen. Clinton’s policies than Sen. Obama’s on this particular issue.” This is certainly not an endorsement of Clinton’s candidacy, but it is a huge indication of why the Edwardses, who were so hugely critical of Hillary throughout the fall, have remained on the sidelines.

4 Comments | Bloomberg | Permalink
Posted by Taniel

Bloomberg confirms he is not running, and people finally believe him

February 28, 2008

After months of speculation during which NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg repeatedly denied any plans of running for President while taking steps that seemed to contradict his declarations, he finally put an end to rumors by writing in a New York Times op-ed that he would not jump in the race. “I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president,” Bloomberg wrote.

With Barack Obama and John McCain now looking favored to win their parties nomination, the general election will feature two candidates who emphasize the need to bring the country together, to transcend partisanship and not look necessarily in line with the party and its priorities. Whether or not those things are true, the fact remains that Bloomberg was hoping to capitalize on divisive and ultra-partisan figures winning the nominations (especially Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney) to jump in, spend millions of his own money and seduce the independents.

Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel — two Senators who had been flirting with Bloomberg for the past few years — had implied recently that there was no need for a Bloomberg candidacy now that McCain had emerged as the GOP nominee. And the same logic was applied to Obama’s rise. Unity08, the group devoted to electing a non-partisan/bipartisan ticket and that was seen as the ideological backbone of a Bloomberg candidacy, announced at the end of 2007 that it was taking a break and cited the rise of the Illinois Senator as proof that its message was functioning: “Barack Obama, for example, has made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of his campaign.”

In his op-ed, Bloomberg confirmed that McCain and Obama’s ideological positioning had weighted in on his decision, and he appears so satisfied as to even consider jumping in on behalf of one of the candidates:

I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership… If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.

It is difficult to say who Bloomberg would have drained most votes from, so that there is no clear sense of who is the most relieved by this announcement. A former Democrat who ran as a Republican before dropping any party affiliation last year, Bloomberg would have emphasized economic issues, drawing on a pro-business orientation that usually favors Republicans. Many voters who typically vote GOP but who are going increasingly Democrat because they are uncomfortable with the Republicans’ social stances could have been attracted to Bloomberg’s candidacy. Most polls that were taken with Bloomberg showed him hovering around the 10% mark, drawing perhaps a tiny bit more votes from the Republican than from the Democrat.
But yet again, Bloomberg demonstrated in NYC that he can appeal to Democratic voters as well, which could have caused trouble for that part’s nominee.

No Comments » | Bloomberg | Permalink
Posted by Taniel