“Running for the nomination without running in the early states is like defying gravity. That’s how hard it is,’’ Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who wrote a book about the presidential nominating process, said ahead of Bloomberg’s announcement. “However, what has not been tried is defying gravity with a lot of money behind you.’’ — “Bloomberg Takes Untested Path to 2020, Skipping Key Contests,” by Mark Nigutte, Bloomberg News.
Add to that ‘however’ a second however: Donald J. Trump. He was nominated and elected even though conventional wisdom and political history both suggested that the chances of this outcome were slim to none.
The objection to the second however is: Democratic primary voters did not rally around Trump.
Democrats are not all liberals, many oppose Bernie Sanders’ revolution and Elizabeth Warren’s plans to address income inequality, and many more may be too anxious to take a chance on any nominee perceived as too far from the center because they think it makes Trump’s reelection more likely.
But it’s hard to see Democrats rallying around Bloomberg, no matter what his “unique set of experiences in business, government and philanthropy,” especially since his opposition to candidates on his left appear to be focused on shielding his $50+ billion fortune (and that of every other billionaire). In an era of unprecedented income inequality, this seems to be an unlikely time for Democrats to embrace a billionaire with no intention of campaigning in the first four primary states or standing on a debate stage with other Democratic candidates, choosing instead to spend a fortune on advertising.
Of course, as the Trump experience shows, slim to none is not definitive. And Bloomberg’s fortune increases his odds at least a bit.
