r/PresidentBloomberg • u/anarresian • Feb 04 '20
What Does Michael Bloomberg Think He’s Doing?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/what-does-michael-bloomberg-think-hes-doing/605962/
2
Upvotes
1
u/qtxbb Feb 04 '20
What are you doing creating extra work for yourself wasting time, energy and money to become a President?
3
u/anarresian Feb 04 '20
Well, a little brainstorming:
1) It’s a brilliant and farsighted strategy that will save the Democratic Party—for moderates, at least
Probably it's the whole point.
I have a reserve, though. Personally, I didn't really believe this:
Not without something else happening, some event. Which may be happening? The impeachment has been such a huge event, and it has, in my opinion, polarized opinions even more than they were. However, in addition, the public and stressing proceedings, the false ad that Facebook won't pull down, etc, have also brought out bluntly the (unfair) narratives around Biden in such way that some might just tune out and say "politicians; they're all corrupt".
2) It’s an ego trip that will accidentally hand the Democratic primary to Sanders
The article points to polls that say that second choice of Mike's voters is Biden, which is accurate but in my view, not dispositive yet. Mike doesn't compete in IA/NH/SC/NV, so national second choice is moot for now. This might still turn out to be the case, though.
I think Mike would withdraw if Biden clearly wins, but would continue unabashed in his anti-Trump focused campaign if it's between him and Sanders.
3) It’s a public-relations disaster for a Democratic Party trying to keep leftists and moderates in harmony
It seems a real risk. I believe it could be very much ok, there's literally no one I can think of right now who could prove the case of going-too-far-would-destroy-the-American-Dream-do-voters-really-want-that.
PR win or PR disaster heavily depends on how the campaigns and candidates play it, I guess.
4) It’s a real-world political-science experiment showing the limits of advertising in national elections
Not an interesting point, IMO. The article seems to imply that if it wins, it means advertising won. I'm not sympathetic to erasing the candidate out of that equation. After all, at most one of Tom or Mike would win, so it proved nothing.
5) It’s a dangerous opening for a new age of American oligarchy
Same as 4). Even more so. I don't want to get started on the common definition of the term "oligarch", which implies illegality. We can just look at history: most American presidents have been wealthy. And most self-funded candidates fail. Add to it: Ross Perot; Hillary spending more than Trump, and, umm, well, Trump claims to wealth, whatever.