It appears increasingly likely that the 2020 Democratic primary field will be the most wide open in recent memory, and perhaps in the history of American politics.
The Daily Beast spoke with opposition researchers and operatives in both parties to get a sense of what could prove helpful and harmful for candidates. These are the individuals whose job it is to understand and exploit the vulnerabilities of those running for office. All of them cautioned that their perspectives were not the same as predictions. But they still had insights to share.
For the final installment, The Daily Beast focused on some of the likely outlier presidential candidates—those who don’t hail from Washington D.C., offer a different set of ideological priorities, and are known predominantly for the money they can use to self-fund. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, financier and environmental activist Tom Steyer, and Montana Governor Steve Bullock would all be long shots should they run. But they also each have a case to make—one that could, potentially provide an opening.
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael Bloomberg
A Bloomberg pitch to Democratic primary voters would, on the surface, be a straightforward one. He can argue that his hefty financial contributions in the last cycle helped Democrats win a resounding victory in the House. He can note that he’s helped spearhead the national focus on climate change and gun reform. He can convincingly make the case that he was the most progressive politician in the country on matters of public health policy—from his anti-smoking campaigns to his attempts to promote healthy living and eating.
But just as those are major draws in a Democratic primary, Bloomberg has some résumé points that—officials stress—make it exceedingly hard to see him doing well. The former mayor is associated with political centrism, he will be harshly criticized for stop-and-frisk practices during his time as mayor, and he has been perfectly comfortable embracing the label of fiscal conservative. That’s not to mention his successful attempt to change New York City’s term limits laws to serve a third term in office.
But Democratic officials say that it’s the former mayor’s billionaire status that could make him unpalatable to a broad share of the primary electorate. Already, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who has formed a presidential exploratory committee and recently made a trip to Iowa, has made it clear that she will criticize self-funders and billionaires propping up campaigns via Super PACs.
“So I think this is a moment for all of the Democratic nominees to come into the race to say ‘in a Democratic primary we are going to link arms and we’re going to say grassroots funding. No to the billionaires. No to the billionaires whether they are self-funding or whether they are funding PACs. We are the Democratic Party and that’s the party of the people,’" she said during a recent interview with Rachel Maddow. "That’s how we not only win elections, that’s how we win movements that make real change.”
Operatives have cautioned that Bloomberg has the ability to throw a wrench into the process if he decided to jump in to the race, with one speculating that he could skip early states and start running advertisements ahead of his opponents in more expensive markets like Texas and Florida. That, however, is akin to the model another former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, adopted when he ran for president in 2008—a model that ended in something far short of success.
Instead, the going assumption is that should Bloomberg run, he will be viewed as a worthy contributor to Democratic causes and ideas but not much of a threat as a candidate. As one operative told The Daily Beast, the party is not looking for a “septuagenarian billionaire white male” but his gun control efforts could buy a modicum of goodwill with voters.
Tom Steyer
Like Bloomberg, Steyer can make the argument that his financial help propelled Democrats to historic wins in 2018. Unlike Bloomberg, Steyer can also showcase a policy portfolio that seems aligned with the progressive lurch Democrats have taken in recent years.
Steyer has made environmentalism his core cause. He’s not shied away from hikes in the minimum wage. And he’s unapologetically pro-impeachment (more on that later). He also supported progressive candidates, built an organization that has helped register and mobilize young voters, and amassed an email list bigger than six million people through his Need to Impeach campaign. His case would be that he has been at the forefront of the liberal wing of the party and the effort to take on the president. No one else in the field can claim to be harder on Trump.
Steyer has also begun holding town halls in key primary states where he has not only advocated for impeachment but discussed voting rights, the environment and health care.
But Democratic operatives are still wary. Steyer has no actual constituency, owing to the fact that he’s never run for office. He is, for all his other attributes, a rich white man at a time when the base is not exactly yearning for those characteristics, operatives say.
Those operatives believe that Steyer has built the infrastructure to make an impact on the primary, especially because his email list includes the most politically active Democratic voters. But they aren’t all that convinced that the list will translate into actual votes. Steyer, it was noted, got only tepid response for an anti-Trump speech he gave this past summer at Netroots Nation, the annual gathering of progressive activists.
Steve Bullock
As the governor of a traditionally red state, Bullock can try to distinguish himself from some of the progressive senators in the field by arguing that he has an appeal that could pry away Trump voters. He was, after all, the only governor to win in a state Trump carried in 2016.
Bullock has also argued effusively against dark money in campaigns and for Net Neutrality—two policy points that other candidates have hit on but none have made quite as central to their platforms.
The rest of the problem for Bullock is that, so far, his argument for being president is not that strong. It hinges largely on his appeal to Trump voters. But he will have to do something else to distinguish himself in a broad, packed race as his name ID among voters throughout the country is still low.
Operatives also say that fundraising can be a concern, as Montana is not a traditionally strong Democratic donor base. Bullock could remedy this by winning over some wealthy backers, but doing that would engender criticism from the base for appearing duplicitous on the campaign finance issue. Yet, operatives said that Bullock’s experience as governor should not be completely dismissed in a primary especially if the argument turns purely to electability and he can position himself as the person best positioned to beat Trump.
