Could We See Romney-Bloomberg in 2020?

In our previous article, we discussed a possible Donald Trump-Tulsi Gabbard 2020 ticket and remembered the attempted 2008 John McCain-Joe Lieberman ticket. Now we have another proposed mixed-party ticket: Mitt Romney-Mike Bloomberg. The idea is that the major parties have galloped off in opposite directions, leaving the center unattended.

The Bulwark says this:

For the good of the country, Senator Romney should run for president as an independent.

With the democratic-socialist Bernie Sanders now the Democratic frontrunner and the political arsonist Donald Trump as the Republican incumbent, there is a yawning chasm that has never before existed in American politics. . .

Senator Romney’s entrance into the presidential race wouldn’t just give the vital center of the electorate a home—it would stand a chance to break a system that is stacked against independents and third party candidates. The last major third-party run was in 1992, when Ross Perot won 19 percent of the vote—and he accomplished this while running against two party centrists, in Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Against two polarizing fringe candidates with no claim to the middle of American politics, we have no idea what Romney’s ceiling might be. And as Emmanuel Macron showed in France, standing up a new party and winning a presidential election in one motion is not impossible. . .

But even if Romney didn’t win, his candidacy could bring enough public pressure to force the parties to give up their duopoly as citizens realize that until the possibility for a viable third party exists, we’re going to keep being forced to choose between unpopular candidates beholden to their party’s extremes. . .

But the biggest opportunity comes with the other half of the ticket: Because Romney would have the chance to select Michael Bloomberg as his vice president.

Think about that for a moment: Bloomberg is the last Republican to be elected mayor of one of the country’s most liberal cities. And while he has since switched his party affiliation, he has demonstrated that he has the ability to build big tent coalitions across partisan divides. . .

A Romney-Bloomberg ticket would be a first in modern American politics: A bipartisan unity ticket running under the banner of an independent third party.

Red State says it’s a bad idea—that Romney has proven that he’s a loser. Also, if Romney wants to run, why pick a liberal Democrat to run with? Their idea is that the Republican Party has become the “Trump Party,” and Romney ought to try to resurrect genuine Republican ideals.

The Prospect disagrees, saying Romney and Bloomberg have a lot in common.

By casting himself into the Republican wilderness, Romney enters a peculiar political space. His partner on this otherwise uninhabited desert island, it seems to me, is Michael Bloomberg—like Romney, appalled by Trump’s violation of nearly every civilized norm and the dangers Trump poses to the nation’s democratic essence; like Romney, a staunch defender of financialized capitalism and a foe of social democratic reforms; and like Romney, willing to put a lot (in Bloomberg’s case, money; in Romney’s, a political career as a Republican) on the line to rein Trump in.

In fact, Romney has more in common with Bloomberg than he does with his fellow Republicans. And in fact, Bloomberg has more in common with Romney than he does with his fellow Democrats (of course, in Bloomberg’s case they’re only recently “fellow”). Democrats thinking of voting for Bloomberg might want to mull this over.

The Daily Beast noted that Romney and Bloomberg had a private meeting about two years ago. The two also met when Romney was running in 2012 as a Republican.

The private meeting—the first between the two wealthy pols—involved a discussion of the Washington issues Bloomberg’s been involved in and, presumably, a push for an endorsement. The NYC media mogul has said that, unlike in 2008, he is willing to endorse a candidate in this presidential race.

Meanwhile, DB Daily Update says it’s a stupid idea.

NeverTrumpers: the single dumbest special interest group on the planet. – In an election year characterized by mind-numbing stupidity, some people still manage to stand out. Some guy named Neal Simon, writing at the NeverTrumper website called “The Bulwark,” published a piece on Monday that will go down in infamy as the single most profoundly stupid opinion piece of the 2020 election season. . .

If America really “deserves” a third-party ticket made up of a traitorous snake like Mitt Romney and a hubris-driven oligarch like Michael Bloomberg, then America is well and truly screwed.

Liberty Unyielding says that the idea of a “centrist” party is dumb, even though the major parties are so far apart. Why? They say there no longer is any “middle.”

t was always a costly fiction that there was a “center” between government demanding to rule over the people in all things – the modern Left – and the uniquely American ideal of limiting government, in some ways absolutely. To the extent anyone still understands himself to hold the latter position, it’s on the Right.

There is in reality no center between these positions. They arise from incompatible mindsets.

To further illustrate how far apart we are, The Stewart Report is rabid in its appraisal of Trump.

The impeached Donald J. Trump is the most dangerous man in American history, dragging our Republic towards a Fascist State. The Obama Administration, like the Weimar Republic, opened the door unexpectedly to Nationalism. The Germans, like Americans today, were “good people.” And a few years later, it took a war to stop him.

OK. Those are extremes. But a lot of people seem to be scared of both Trump and Bernie. As noted above, the only effective third party race in recent memory was in 1992, when Ross Perot ran against two candidates who were both in the center—GHW Bush and Bill Clinton (who even used the term, “triangulation,” to describe pulling together right and left).

When Perot dropped out of the race, he actually was ahead of both other candidates in the polls. That was running against centrists. The Romney-Bloomberg ticket would be running against both extremes.

And that’s why Romney-Bloomberg is viable. Name recognition. Experience. Traditional Republicans. Never-Trumpers. Fiscal conservatives—who care about the national debt. And Bloomberg’s bucks, who has said his main goal is beating Trump, and regardless of the candidate who runs against Trump. Why not him?