Too good for the Democrats

In writing here about how Michael Bloomberg is preparing to enter the Democratic presidential sweepstakes, I expressed doubt that he has a realistic chance of moving into serious contention. Bloomberg’s candidacy can probably be dismissed for that reason.

However, some are dismissing Bloomberg on the theory that he brings nothing much to the table. Consider this passage from the normally sensible Dan Balz of the Washington Post:

Almost every attribute Bloomberg brings to the campaign is already spoken for by the current field. A mayor? There’s Buttigieg or former Newark mayor Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) or former San Antonio mayor Julián Castro. A moderate? Well, there’s Biden and Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo.) and Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana. . .

He’s a billionaire willing to spend a fortune. So is Tom Steyer.

It must not have occurred to Balz that Bloomberg is the only Democratic candidate who possesses all three of these attributes. This fact alone states a case for giving Bloomberg serious consideration, or would if the Democrats were more sensible.

It’s also a bit misleading to compare the successful three-time mayor of America’s biggest city (in terms of population) to the mayor of South Bend, San Antonio, or Newark. And unlike Steyer, Bloomberg didn’t earn his billions just by running hedge funds (not that there’s anything wrong with that). He also created an impressive news empire.

Bloomberg has his faults, and his ideological and policy views differ considerably from mine. Nonetheless, I think he’s clearly too good for the Democrats.

Responses