Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why Bloomberg’s candidacy is bad for democracy

Mike Bloomberg

Jeff Barrett argues, "Mike Bloomberg doesn't have to win a single state to become the nominee. And that should scare you."

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Barrett is a communications consultant and advisor to Square One Politics, a Democratic campaign consulting firm. He's also on the advisory board of DoSomething, which promotes civic engagement by young people.

Chaos. That is Mike Bloomberg's strategy for 2020. And after Iowa he has what he wants.

Smart billionaires don't keep airing national commercials of their bus driving through America — unless they know the path. That path doesn't seem clear to everyone right now, but it is. And every domino is falling in the right direction for it.

How we got to this path is decades in the making, involves a lot of money and should make you want to punch through a wall like the Kool-Aid Man. Because at the core of Bloomberg's apparent strategy is something antithetical to a functioning democracy. He doesn't actually need your vote. He doesn't need to win a single state in the primary. He has enough money to circumvent the entire process, to sustain a losing campaign until it becomes viable or hang around long enough to do something even worse for democracy.


So, what is he up to, really? First of all, the discussed Bloomberg strategy isn't the real strategy.

In 2008, Rudy Giuliani famously chose to skip Iowa and New Hampshire and bet his campaign for the Republican nomination on Florida and Super Tuesday. It didn't work. It has never worked.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Bloomberg has to claim that as his strategy because he got in late. There was no time to put together a credible ground game in the early states. He won't be a factor in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, and don't expect him to win Nevada or South Carolina either. But he can gain a few delegates along the way.

And that's the real strategy.

It will take 1,990 of 3,979 pledged delegates to win the Democratic nomination on the first ballot. Delegates are proportionately distributed based on the share of the vote each candidate receives in the primaries and caucuses. States are not winner-take-all. But you do have to get 15 percent in a contest to claim any delegates.

In a crowded field there's a greater likelihood no one gets to 1,990. Then what happens? The convention goes to a second ballot, when the winner needs 2,376 of the 4,750 delegates. Wait. How are there now more delegates?

Because the superdelegates are allowed to vote. These people, mostly elected and appointed party officials, are not bound to any candidate.

In theory, they are meant to be a balance in case the pledged folks push for a candidate someone party leaders don't view as viable. You can see where many would find their mere existence unfair. After a long fight with the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign over the fairness of keeping superdelegates, the party decided to prevent them from voting on the first ballot this time.

It seems fair. But the unintended consequence is that those superdelegates are no longer available to mitigate chaos and push the delegate leader over the threshold on the first try.

If five or six viable candidates remain in the race through March, a brokered convention is likely. And there, as at a caucus, delegates would be free to migrate toward whomever everyone in the room decides would have the best chance of winning in November.

That could lead to further chaos and distrust. There's already so much focus on the presidential race, even as dozens of critical House and Senate seats are at stake. A brokered convention would lead to even less focus on down-ballot races.

The scenario for a brokered convention is not far fetched.

Joe Biden doesn't seem like he'll give up easily, even after a poor showing in Iowa. Sanders has already proven he will fight to the end as he did in 2016. Elizabeth Warren is consistently grabbing at least 15 percent of the vote in most states and has vacillated between being a contender and the front-runner at times. Pete Buttigieg is strong in some regions of the country and facing an uphill climb in others, mainly places like upcoming South Carolina.

Amy Klobuchar will grab delegates in the Midwest and some elsewhere, and Andrew Yang has a strong enough following to matter and be pivotal at the convention — although they are most likely to exit before the end of March. Then there's another billionaire, Tom Steyer, who can stay in as long as he wants because he's self-funded.

There's a real scenario in which eight people are grabbing delegates through March, including Bloomberg. Simple math will tell you, if that's the case, no one is reaching 1,990.

If Biden fades, the party's moderate wing will look to Buttigieg but he's an unknown. It both works in his favor and doesn't. His low numbers with African-Americans could worry party voters about his chances in a general election. There will be people worried that either Sanders or Warren are too far left and can't win the general election either.

And here sits Bloomberg, casually saying all the right things. He has pledged to keep his staff of 1,000 people on through November to support the eventual nominee. He has vowed to do whatever he can, with his vast media assets, to defeat President Trump.

But make no mistake, he's counting on and facilitating a brokered convention. Mike Bloomberg doesn't have to win a single state to become the nominee. And that should scare you. He has the money and resources to remain in the campaign even if he's in seventh of eight places, a luxury almost no candidate has ever had. Campaigns are expensive and the second you lose momentum that money usually goes away quickly.

Mike Bloomberg represents the billionaire savior, something we have glorified in this country. But, as Hasan Minhaj brilliantly laid out, billionaires won't save us. The philanthropist who has enough money and good ideas to help the poorest Americans is not new. It exists all along the ideological spectrum, from Bill Gates on the left to the Koch family on the right.

When there's chaos, everyone will look for a savior, someone outside of a confusing fray — someone like Mike Bloomberg. He's counting on that. And he doesn't have to count on your vote. That is flat bad for democracy.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less