Why the 2020 winning ticket includes Michael Bloomberg

[left-of-center2012]

BY PAUL KAHN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/481242-why-the-2020-winning-ticket-includes-michael-bloomberg

Now that the impeachment trial has run its course, it is time to reassess the field of Democratic candidates. The big recent development has not been shifting leads in Iowa, a state quite unrepresentative of the general electorate. Rather, it has been the rise of Michael Bloomberg. Nationally, he is now polling ahead of Pete Buttigieg. There is a good reason for this. None of the “leading candidates” can actually give Democrats what they want most, which is a decisive victory against Donald Trump this fall.

Most Democratic voters are in no mood to take risks. Many do believe the president to be an existential threat to the nation and even the world. The task at hand is to pick the candidate best positioned to win. We can argue about policy after the election. The winning ticket is Michael Bloomberg and Kamala Harris. This is not a judgment about who would be the best president. It is only about who is best positioned to prevail in the election. I reached this conclusion by a process of elimination, focusing on which candidate can best withstand what will be an awful general campaign.

First, Democrats should hesitate to lead with any candidate who voted to impeach. Impeachment will be the issue around which Trump solidifies his base.
Second, we have no strong reason to think the candidates on the left, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, can win.
Third, Joe Biden is too risky. One certainly has to worry not just about his senior moments but also about the relentless attacks on him and his son Hunter Biden for their involvement and business in Ukraine.
Fourth, Buttigieg remains untested. We do not know whether the country is prepared to vote for a gay president. I hope that it is, but this is not the time to test the proposition.

That eliminates the front runners. Bloomberg is much stronger than the rest of the pack. Bloomberg has the name recognition and the network. The candidate should be chosen to win the necessary votes in the swing states. The running mate should be chosen to respond to the traditional constituencies of the party. The ticket must acknowledge the importance of women and minorities. The likely choice then will be Kamala Harris or Stacey Abrams. A campaign that criticizes either of them will no doubt be seen as racist and sexist. Harris has one very big advantage in blunting those attacks in that she already occupies national office as a senator.

The vice president may have to become president, especially when the candidate is older. Harris can do that in the eyes of the nation.
Bloomberg and Harris is the winning ticket.

[Voltaire2]

1. Lulzd.

How about we just rebrand as the Democratic-Republican Party?

[left-of-center2012]

2. Two of he current candidates were Republcan n/t

Last edited Tue Feb 4, 2020, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

[reACTIONary]

7. How about we rebrand ...

.... As big tent WINNERS.

[Nikki28]

3. i have been feeling

like this for the last two months because of the very things posted here. Although if not Kama la, than maybe Amy or Liz would be good VP.It is sad but this letter can be right on the money and I would vote for him in a heartbeat ad push as many as possible to the polls. Problem is, will we have another case like what happened in 2016 when Sanders set out for a while pissed, or will all the parties who did not win work together and help energize ad work every state that can get the down ballet wins like Bloomberg did for the Democrats in 2018?

That would be the tell that will hand Trump another win if there are sore losers.Imagine every candidate who loss work there buts off for the party to accept the win and realize getting this mad man out of the white house is more important that ego.Imagine we have Obama out there stumping for the nominee. I think Bloom berg will make sure those voting machines will work if he has to buy new ones himself or make enough noise and pull some strings to fight dirty like the Rep do and use his connections to mess with the vote Talley's like Trump and friends use Russia to cheat.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. My dream is that there is a country already to come to our rescue when they see Russia or ect do the same cheating and at the last minute,after being sick of bully Trump decides to put their thumb on the scale and give us a catch up and take all three branches back so we can clean up this criminal mobster government and start with replacing every person not qualified and get security clearance folks and start with the crime boss lacky Bill Barr. Make Adam Shiff attorney General,bring back all FBI and all branches that Trump fired back like Andy Macabe,Sally Yates ect..They will have a lot to clean up that is for sure.Bloomberg is the one to do just that.

[ms liberty]

4. And we would lose. He has some very stupid ideas about marijuana

And his stance on that issue is disqualifying.

[reACTIONary]

8. Like that's the top issue facing our nation...

... I don't think it has any significance.

[Blues Heron]

9. It shows he's a closed minded hypocrite

It's very revealing about his character and dangerous authoritarian tendencies. Also Stop and Frisk.

[reACTIONary]

11. So he doesn't agree with you, and said as much...

..... that might be because he's closed minded.

But how does that make him a hypocrite?

As far as being authoritarian, he is supposed to be a lawmaker and have policy stances. Is every lawmaker with an opinion an authoritarian?

[Blues Heron]

12. Being a billionaire he probably has a well stocked wine callar full of fancy

and addictive ethanol-laced fermented beverages. That makes him a hypocrite.

[reACTIONary]

13. Actually, it doesn't, but....

... it doesn't matter ... it isn't a concern.

[Blues Heron]

14. It does, he is

end of story.

[reACTIONary]

15. LOL, Your quite the...

.... story teller.

[Blues Heron]

16. It's hyporitical to demonize a benign drug while guzzling and lauding

a far more dangerous drug- ethanol. This isn't rocket science, or a difficult concept to understand - it's hypocrisy 101.

[reACTIONary]

22. It would be hypocrasy if...

... he has a Mary Jane garden in his backyard and lit up every night. Otherwise, no.

Not that it's important one way or another.

[mdelaguna]

5. Agreed. nt

[MFM008]

6. As long as there

A woman on the ticket.

[Amishman]

10. NO. Enough billionaires

Our democracy is not for sale.

[Dem4Life1102]

21. Well said nt

[highplainsdem]

17. I'm still hoping Biden can get the nomination. But if not, I'm fine with Bloomberg as our nominee.

Especially if the alternative is Sanders.

[Awsi Dooger]

18. I love the way the author handicapped the situation

That's the way it should be done every cycle, but you have to adjust to each cycle based on situational realities. For example, we could have nominated anyone in 2008, given Bush's sustained low approval ratings since Katrina, and a troubled economy. This time against an incumbent it has to be a bold tactic.

The only thing I disagree with him on is the notion that Biden is too risky. I like Biden but his nomination would the opposite of risky. It would be a safe default to the person we believe would have won in 2016. But that's the type of thing you have to let go of, not carry forward. I continue to believe that nominating Joe Biden would be like Republicans nominating Bob Dole in 1996.

Bloomberg/Harris is fine, even if I would prefer Bloomberg/Klobuchar. I think Amy would charm lots of women who were somehow scared of Hillary in 2016. Plus obviously Klobuchar has strength in those midwestern states that we need to carry.

[redqueen]

19. OFFS

[Doremus]

20. I don't recall reading a more sophomoric opinion piece

I'm sure I have somewhere along the line, I just don't remember it.