Perspective:
In trying to win the Democratic nomination for president, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not playing by the usual rules, and that just might be the reason he wins, writes a close observer of the primary process.
Michael Bloomberg’s entry into the presidential race last month was panned almost universally. Less than 30 days later, he hit 7 percent, just 2 percentage points behind Pete Buttigieg in last week’s national Quinnipiac poll and he pulled even at 5 percent in the The Hill/HarrisX poll. Granted, Buttigieg has plummeted, but, nevertheless, Bloomberg is climbing slowly into the top tier.
When Bloomberg announced, political pundits dismissed his bid, many with trite “truisms” about political tradecraft. First, money can’t buy the presidency. Second, his late entry is fatal. Third, by skipping the first four contests, he will fall hopelessly behind. Fourth, his policy stands are all over the map, so he has no natural following or base.
But maybe Bloomberg has a strategy. After all, if he’s so dumb, why’s he so rich? Let’s hazard some thoughts on possible strategy.
First, let’s be realistic, his $55 billion provides him a tremendous advantage.
Second, pundits have deemed his late entry to be fatal, as if late entry alone were as fatal as stage four pancreatic cancer. What has passed as analysis has been limited to references to the failure of other late entrants. Yet, none of the referenced candidates had Bloomberg’s money, and virtually all failed for reasons other than late entry, and the same reasons have felled early entrants.
In, 2016, late entrant Rick Perry was felled during a national TV debate by a momentary brain freeze, forgetting the third in his trademark list of three federal agencies he’d shutter. However, the earliest entrant in the 1968 contest, Republican George Romney, was eliminated well into his campaign by just one word, “brainwashed,” and, in 1972, another early and leading Democratic contender, Ed Muskie, self-destructed with a single sob on the campaign trail just before the New Hampshire primary.
Third, skipping the first four contests has an obvious and compelling rationale. To flip a popular saying: you can’t lose it, if you’re not in it. This is a variant of the successful strategy of American revolutionaries: they ran away to fight another day. Bloomberg will survive the first four contests. Every other candidate, except four at most, won’t.
There are virtually no delegates at stake in these early contests — 4 percent of the total. The winner(s) of those contests will have virtually nothing to show for the enormous effort entailed, except bragging rights, which, then, must be defended in the next of the four contests in order to meet elevated expectations and maintain momentum.
Bloomberg won’t have lost any meaningful ground, unless one candidate rolls the table, winning all four early contests. What are the odds of that? Both Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren have surged and swooned. Buttigieg remains in the lead in Iowa, but has fallen in New Hampshire, with Bernie Sanders taking the lead. Mayor Pete is mired in single digits in South Carolina, where Joe Biden has a commanding 19-point lead. First three states, three different leaders.
If Bloomberg hasn’t lost anything, what has he gained by skipping the first four contests? Here it gets interesting.
First and foremost, he can focus exclusively on the one contest that really matters, Super Tuesday on
March 3, a 14-state contest with more than 35 percent of all delegates at stake. This contest is as fateful as the Ides of March. Focusing on this contest is having your eye on the ball. It is fair to say that everything beforehand is a distraction.
This battleground is uniquely well-suited to Bloomberg. He has the money to compete anywhere and everywhere. No other candidate does. Even if they did, they can’t devote meaningful time, much less exclusive focus, because their viability depends upon winning in the earlier contests.
While the other candidates are tied down in the First Four, Bloomberg will have the Super Tuesday states all to himself for three full months — December, January, and February.
He will not have sustained a loss nor lost momentum. Yes, he will be measured by the polls, but most pollsters and the media will focus on the early states and the national outlook, not the future contests in the 14 scattered states of Super Tuesday. The polling across this crazy quilt of states will be relatively spotty.
Only one 14-state Super Tuesday poll has been released since Bloomberg’s announcement, covering Dec. 3-11. No surprise, it shows Bloomberg starting in low single digits. Bloomberg has nowhere to go but up. Tellingly, the poll ranked his ads as the best.
So, Bloomberg will be the great unknown. His candidacy will generate mounting suspense and fascination, which may turn out to be more compelling than the jockeying amongst the other candidates.
Fourth, those who say he has no base or following ignore that this could be an advantage. If opponents can’t define him, they can’t really attack him. He may be the ultimate shape-shifter that no one can effectively target, and he won’t be in the debates, the only forum in which opponents can land a meaningful punch. In contrast, everyone knows that frontrunners Warren and Sanders are hard-left progressives. Mayor Pete is attractive, but woefully inexperienced. Biden? He is running on his Obama-Biden record, a very well defined profile and target.
Finally, Bloomberg has been called uncharismatic and boring. Maybe after Barack Obama’s ineffectual eloquence — race relations deteriorated despite his impressive oratory on the subject — and President Donald Trump’s constant turmoil, Bloomberg’s un-dramatic steady-Eddie getthings-done character may be just what Americans yearn for.
So, perhaps Bloomberg’s bid isn’t as fanciful a venture as many pundits seem to think. Even if it fails, it is not without a solid strategic rationale.
Don’t count out Mayor Mike.