By Dan Murphy
With former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg slowly moving up the polls in the democratic presidential race (he’s now at 10 percent in third place behind Bernie Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg), a story came out last week from the old, famous conservative news blogger Matt Drudge, with the headline “Exclusive: Bloomberg Considers Hillary Running Mate:”
“Sources close to Bloomberg campaign tell Druge Report that candidate is considering Hillary as running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force…” Many media outlets picked up on the idea but then rejected it with their own political pundits.
The Bloomberg campaign downplayed the rumor but didn’t reject it. “We are focused on the primary and the debate, not VP speculation,” said Jason Schechter, the campaign’s communications director.
Clinton did not publicly respond to the report, but she did tell Ellen DeGeneres earlier this month, when asked whether she would consider being a vice presidential candidate, “Well, that’s not going to happen. But, no, probably no. I never say never because I do believe in serving my country. But it’s not going to happen.”
The former secretary of state, U.S. senator from New York and first lady of the United States, still calls Chappaqua home and has recently been spotted around Westchester with husband Bill, including at EagleFest this month.
Both Bloomberg and Hillary did not completely reject, or rule out, the Drudge Report, leaving the window open, and for those who can honestly and openly consider it, may actually make political sense.
Republican strategist and Trump supporter Steve Bannon has been saying for months that he sees Clinton re-entering the 2020 presidential race in some way, perhaps as a “save the day” candidate at the democratic convention, or as Bloomberg’s running mate.
Bannon was recently interviewed by Maria Bartiromo, who asked about the Bloomberg-Hillary rumors.
BARTIROMO: “So, you knew Hillary Clinton was going to come into this race. You said it. Assess the situation, the combination of Bloomberg and Clinton.”
BANNON: “If Drudge puts his name on something, and there hasn’t been denials, it’s money good. I’m not saying it’s going to happen. And Matt Drudge is not saying it’s happening, but there are clearly discussions going on. You really haven’t had a denial from the Bloomberg camp. And you certainly haven’t had a denial from the Hillary Clinton camp. And I think that this shows you the desperation of the Democratic Party and really the personal vendetta that the Clintons and Michael Bloomberg have against President Trump.
“Remember, on Tuesday night, March 3, in a couple of weeks, at midnight, when the California polls close out – out West, the Democratic Party will have an independent socialist and a moderate or liberal mayor, Republican mayor of New York, as the two top guys running for the primary.
“There won’t really be any Democrats around. This is why Hillary Clinton – and I believe that Bill Clinton’s fingerprints are all over this – I think you can see Bill Clinton trying to get Hillary back in the game.
“And now Bloomberg needs Hillary to counter react all of the negative stories now coming out. The Bernie people, the Bernie movement have to understand now they’re detested and despised, as the deplorables are in the Trump movement. And I think this is a wakeup call for all of Bernie’s people to say, ‘Hey, we are detested by Bloomberg. We’re detested by the Clintons.’
“The Hillary Clinton camp keeps trashing him. Hillary herself said nobody likes him. Why do you think Bill Clinton’s fingerprints are all over this?
“Bill Clinton back in 2016, was the one who saw what Trump was doing, going into Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. He’s talking about returning America to its greatness built upon the shoulders of the working-class and middle-class. Clinton, who’s a master politician, saw that Donald Trump was resonating with working-class Democrats and would win those states.
“The hipsters in Brooklyn (Hillary’s campaign HQ in 2016) thought they had a better plan. They thought they could micro-target this thing. And that’s why Clinton has been seething, just like Hillary has, from that time.”
BARTIROMO: “So he’s willing to spend up to $2 billion to take out Donald Trump. How much of a threat is Clinton-Bloomberg together against Donald Trump?”
BANNON: “Listen, any time you are going to put – he said $2 billion if he’s not the nominee. He will have unlimited amount of money to do this. He has a personal vendetta against the president. So does Hillary Clinton. President Trump is going to win and should win. But I got to tell you, Bloomberg’s money, the Clinton apparatus, this is going to be a nasty, brutal campaign.” (End of interview.)
Last month, Hillary was openly critical of Bernie Sanders, saying: “He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.” Clinton also accused Bernie of supporting sexist attacks against other female democratic presidential candidates.
A former Trumper, now a never-Trumper, Anthony Scaramucci, said he also believes Bloomberg is the best candidate to beat the president in November. While Scaramucci admits that “the consensus of the elites is that President Trump is going to get re-elected and so that’s why I actually think he’s going to lose,” Elites are typically wrong about this stuff.
“Most great presidents in their first term figure out a way to expand their base,” said Scaramucci. “Despite the economic data, he’s still locked in at 42 percent. Bloomberg has the money, he knows how to handle the Trump onslaught of all the bullying nonsense. I like him the best. He’s the most experienced. He’s a clear-eyed, technical leader. Mike Bloomberg would be the best of the available candidates to beat President Trump.”
Trump supporters love the idea.
“I can think of absolutely nothing that would make @realDonaldTrump and his supporters happier,” conservative commentator Candace Owens tweeted. “Do it, @HillaryClinton. Make our day.”
A majority of Westchester voters supported Hillary Clinton in 2016. Upon reading this story, or hearing the rumor from Drudge, those same voters are asking: Would Hillary run for vice-president? Isn’t that beneath her?
Others believe this was just a political stunt by Bloomberg to “connect” to Clinton. “Bloomberg made a calculated PR move here that’s brilliant,” writes Cindy Gordon from Hillary for America. “Whether we like her or not, HRC still attracts solid support from most Democratic loyalists and activists. One way for Bloomberg to attract some of that mainstream Democratic support up for grabs is to float a calculated leak. If 15 percent of Democrats absolutely love HRC, that tips the scales to Bloomberg by those percentage points in the Democratic primary. Hence, he’s leaps instantly in the co-leader position. It’s a ploy. Sanders supporters, who don’t like HRC, aren’t going to support Bloomberg in the primary anyway.”
New Yorker Andy Humm said: “I voted for Hillary, but this is becoming grotesque. Elections are supposed to be about the future. (For those who doubt the story because of the source, I do know a friend who was polled on the telephone about how he felt about Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who is African-American, as Bloomberg’s running mate. His pollsters must be testing out a lot of possibilities.)”
Peekskill Democrat Janet Watkins wrote: “I’m voting for Bloomberg and I like Hillary. She got smeared by the Donald and Republicans. She did nothing wrong or illegal. Like the Donald said, ‘If you say it often people will believe it.’ And she got more votes than Trump the last time.”
And for those who believe that Bloomberg’s campaign is totally reliant on his millions spent on TV ads, also remember that another democratic presidential hopeful, Tom Steyer, has spent $190 Million according to his FEC report, and has very little to show for it.
