His chances were underestimated by a lot of folks, and the volatility up until yesterday speaks to that. But the debate performance + him running as a serious man in effective ads with an unserious social media campaign designed to make him seem cool undermined it. https://t.co/h5k8MS5Gtl— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) March 4, 2020
I get that Maggie Haberman knows NYC and probably lived there under the mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg (well, I know she did, she covered him as Mayor), but honestly, what "chances" for Bloomberg as a Presidential contender were underestimated? Yesterday was the very first time Bloomberg was on the ballot in any Democratic primary, and he lost spectacularly. His "chances" were the same ones Bernie Sanders had before South Carolina, when the race was declared over based on returns from three states, two of them very small (population wise) states. Pundits convinced money is everything in politics (it's not the only thing, as Joe Biden proved) were sure Bloomberg would "buy" the nomination. He didn't; Tom Steyer didn't. What undermined Bloomberg was that NYC is not the nation, anymore than New Hampshire or Iowa represent the Democratic electorate. What undermined Bloomberg is that he was another NYC billionaire (or, actually, the first to run for President), and the simple fact that money does not buy elections. Joe Biden didn't even campaign in some of the states he won last night (winning a state is for bragging rights only. Biden "won" Texas, but that doesn't mean he took all the delegates up for grabs, any more than Sanders gets all the delegates California has to offer). Reputation and familiarity matter, and most of the Democratic electorate knows Biden far better than they know Bloomberg.
And they want someone they are confident can defeat Trump, which means someone other people will vote for. That's really rather a tricky determination to make. It may be that, yesterday, Democratic primary voters actually managed to make it. We'll see.
No comments:
Post a Comment