Mary Cipperman ’21 | Nicholas Christos ’20
Billionaire, founder of software company Bloomberg LP, former three term mayor of New York City, and Democratic candidate (in that order) Michael Bloomberg has been nothing short of unconventional. Not only has his campaign strategy differed from other Democratic candidates, but his polling data seems to indicate that it has been effective. This is not an endorsement of Bloomberg for the nomination, however, we see his “game theory” of a strategy beginning to work, making us view him as the dark horse in the 2020 election.
We agree with a recent New York Times editorial which states, “There is a way that people generally run for president. And there is whatever Mr. Bloomberg is doing. Looking past Iowa and New Hampshire to focus on the delegate-rich contests that come in the months that follow, Mr. Bloomberg is betting that his zag-while-they-zig electoral strategy and functionally bottomless resources can make him the standard-bearer of a Democratic Party whose 2020 primary has been defined in part by progressive disdain for the billionaire class.”
For example, a RealClearPolitics.com average of multiple polls from late January indicated that Bloomberg rests in fourth place among Democratic candidates, less than one point above Mayor Pete Buttigieg. A recent Monmouth University poll concurs with Bloomberg’s fourth place standing among Democrats. A recent survey of 345 students and faculty at EA actually showed Bloomberg tied with Senator Bernie Sanders in 3rd place among Democratic contenders.
Yet, he’s decided not to campaign in the first four states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina) where all other candidates have been putting massive amounts of energy, or participate in debates at all and interviews limitedly, insulating himself. Instead, Bloomberg has diverted attention to Super Tuesday, the most delegate rich primary election day, and attempted to counter Trump’s money-centric campaign strategy via his own political weapon of choice: millions of dollars on ads. For example, along with Trump, Bloomberg is the only candidate who was able to purchase a 10 million dollar ad buy for the Super Bowl.
As a reference, Politico.com reported that Bloomberg has spent over two-hundred million dollars on television advertising as of mid-January since he announced his campaign in November. NPR reported that he spent one-hundred million dollars on campaign ads in the month of December alone. President Trump has spent about 46 million dollars so far, while Bernie Sanders, the biggest spender after Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, has spent about 27 million dollars on media. It is clear that Bloomberg is extremely outspending his Democratic rivals by massive margins and he would be able to outspend President Trump to a huge degree in the general election.
Additionally, an aide on another major Democratic campaign who wished to remain anonymous explained, “I was offered a role on the Bloomberg campaign where I would be paid double what I am currently making and be guaranteed a job through November due to his pledge to use one billion dollars of his own money to do whatever it takes to defeat Trump.” It is possible that Bloomberg would be willing to spend up to five billion dollars or whatever it takes as his pockets are basically bottomless.
To his benefit, a recent Gallup poll found “Six in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer to see the party nominate the candidate with the best chance of beating President Donald Trump, even if that person does not share their views on key issues. By contrast, 36% say they would rather have the reverse: a candidate aligned with them on almost all the issues they care about, even if that person is not the most electable.” This is appealing to Bloomberg whose campaign is energized by funding rather than by voters’ alignment with his specific stances.
Despite Bloomberg’s aggressive advertising, many people feel that his political stances remain unclear. “The only thing that he’s really done,” says Rob Trumbull, AP U.S. Government and Politics teacher, “is have some slick ads on TV that don’t say too much, and apologize for having the stop-and-frisk policy when he was mayor of New York.” Trumbull thinks this strategy will hurt him as a candidate.
“I think because he’s not participating and because he’s not attending all the debates, voters are missing out on an opportunity to see his policies, to see him in action, and to see him evolve on some of the issues,” Trumbull says. Bloomberg appears to evade the democratic system of the early primaries, even if his ads have won him popularity. He holds very little rallies to connect with voters and shake hands.
Furthermore, Bloomberg has shifted his political affiliation over the years, similar to President Trump. Bloomberg was a Republican mayor and then chose to become an Independent, a move many thought he was making to position himself to run in the 2016 election. He eventually chose not to seek the nomination in an editorial titled “The Risk I will Not Take” where he explained that he did not want to split the electoral college and elect Donald Trump. He did, however, speak at the Democratic National Convention in 2016. Bloomberg recently became a Democrat prior to his current run.
Erin Boyle ‘20 agrees that although she’s seen his ads, his policies remain unclear. “I feel like he’s just calling more attention to himself. It’s also kind of a red flag because he’s not going against the competition, and he’s not willing to put himself out there quite yet.” She worries that his focus on education policy hasn’t worked with other political candidates.
Despite this, Trumbull and Boyle, along with a plethora of news sources today agree: we’ll have to look to the future to determine just how effective Bloomberg’s pecuniary politics will be. As of now, his pragmatism and data-based strategy seem to be working, and his approach might just be what Democrats need in the upcoming general election.