Bloombergism is the Opposite of a Political Sweet Spot

As I observed yesterday, one reason AmericansElectUnityNoLabels efforts are always trainwrecks is that the funders behind them are devoted to giving voters as little of what they want as possible.  “(Erskine Bowles, tanned, rested, and zzzzzzzzzz!) As David Dayen observes, a Bloomberg candidacy would be very much within this tradition:

I colorfully described that event eight years ago as “Wankstock” (three days of peace, love, and bipartisanship). It was perhaps the greatest example of the self-deluded fiction that the country is yearning for a centrist savior to bring everyone together through the power of persuasion and good old-fashioned common sense. In reality, this is a cover story for people with lots of money wanting to install one of their own in the White House to get rid of the pesky “public interest” side of political debates now and for good.

The hilarious conclusion to Wankstock came when the participants, at least on the Democratic side, ran away from the idea of supporting an independent Bloomberg candidacy. “I am a Democrat, and I will endorse a Democratic president,” said former Senator Gary Hart. Even the target audience for centrist technocracy wouldn’t commit to it.

[…]

An anti-teachers’-union, anti-gun, pro-nanny state, pro-Wall Street, pro-stop-and- frisk, pro-inequality, pro-immigration, pro-surveillance, pro-Iraq War neoconservative is almost surgically designed to repel practically every American voter on some level. Horse-race polls mean little at this point, but every one of them puts Bloomberg far back of the pack. That’s mainly because he’s virtually unknown to anyone who doesn’t write for or read a major media publication in the New York/D.C. area.

I just wonder whether he’d be joined on the ticket by Joe Lieberman, Matt Miller, or Ron Fournier.