Which ticket would he run on? It’s not even close. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat who became a Republican not out of conviction but because he couldn’t win a Democratic primary for mayor of New York. (It wasn’t possible to run as an independent.) His politics have remained fairly liberal. In fact, his positions on issues like abortion, gun control, gay rights and government regulation actually put him slightly to the left of the Democratic Party mainstream. He even reluctantly came to terms with the teachers’ union in New York. Only on Iraq—where his views are murky—might there be any distance between him and the Democratic candidates, though probably not.
This will all come into sharper focus next spring, when Bloomberg will make his final decision on whether to run as an independent. Even considering the buyer’s remorse that will inevitably afflict voters after the parties pick their nominees, it’s a good bet that Bloomberg will only have about 20 or 25 percent support—at best. The mayor has made it clear in private that he won’t be a spoiler à la Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. Then he will have two options: not run, and look forward to a postmayoral future as a philanthropist, or listen to the entreaties of the Democratic nominee when he comes courting.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she cannot pick Bloomberg. The Constitution bars the election of a president and vice president from the same state. But if Barack Obama, John Edwards, Al Gore or anyone else gets the nod, expect them to feel out Hizzoner for No. 2.
The first reason is obvious. Bloomberg would bring at least a half billion dollars to the Democratic ticket for the general election, which is about six times what would come from standard public financing. Some election experts are already saying Bloomberg couldn’t self-finance as a veep candidate—that it would be viewed as an illegal donation to the presidential nominee. Other lawyers counter that if it’s tested in court, a judge would more likely decide that, because the vice presidency is a constitutional office, self-financing is kosher. Critics would no doubt say the Democrats were buying the election, but voters traditionally react differently. When candidates self-finance, they seem like they can’t be bought. The press, meanwhile, obsessed with the power of money, would immediately lay heavy odds on a Democratic victory in November.
To take the second spot, Bloomberg wouldn’t even have to change party registration again; picking an independent would seem fresh and in keeping with this election’s inclusive message. And while an Obama-Bloomberg ticket would be Archie Bunker’s worst nightmare, the presence of a highly successful manager as the chief operating officer of the United States would prove a big asset for Obama, Edwards or anyone else at the top of the ticket. He would come in as a heavyweight, just as Dick Cheney seemed to be for George W. Bush in 2000.
Of course, if you asked Bloomberg about the vice presidency today, he would immediately rule it out. He is no one’s idea of a second fiddle. But this has always been the response of alpha males when the subject of the vice presidency comes up. In the end, if it looks as if the ticket will win, they almost invariably sign on. John Nance Garner was Speaker of the House in 1932 and thought the vice presidency wasn’t worth “a pitcher of warm piss.” He ran with FDR. Lyndon Johnson was the powerful Senate majority leader in 1960. He ran with JFK. Nelson Rockefeller was governor of New York in 1974, but he happily became VP under Gerald Ford. And Ford himself, as an ex-president, was briefly game to run as Ronald Reagan’s No. 2 on the 1980 ticket, though the deal quickly fell apart.
This willingness to settle for being vice president came in an era when it was a powerless job with a good bet the veep would be dumped on and ignored by the president. Now that has changed. Walter Mondale, George H.W. Bush, Al Gore and Cheney have made it an immensely influential position. They had independent power bases and a chance to shape history.
For Bloomberg, there would be no downside. What would he do instead? Term limits preclude re-election as mayor. As for his philanthropy, there’s no law preventing a vice president from running the government and giving away billions at the same time. His influence in the job would possibly exceed even Cheney’s—except for good, not ill, at least in theory. Likely? No. But don’t bet against it.
