28 United States The EconomistFebruary 22nd 2020
2 chairs South Carolina’s legislative black
caucus and whose firm has been paid more
than $40,000 by the Steyer campaign, says
“there are no perfect candidates”, but that
Mr Steyer represents “a good transition
[and has] supported good causes”. Mr
Steyer’s return on investment has been to
eclipse Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and
Elizabeth Warren in South Carolina’s polls.
The bad news for Mr Steyer is that his
war-chest is feeble compared with Mr
Bloomberg’s. The former mayor has spent
twice as much on advertising in Super
Tuesday states as the rest of the field com-
bined and already has a full-time campaign
staff of 2,400. His record of entrepreneur-
ship, three mayoral terms in New York and
subsequent philanthropy also give him
more to brag about than Mr Steyer.
If Mr Bloomberg can afford to sit-out
and watch South Carolina without worry-
ing about what the result there will do to
his campaign infrastructure, Mr Buttigieg,
Ms Klobuchar and Ms Warren cannot. Ms
Warren’s South Carolina polling matches
national trends: a rise last year, followed by
a steady decline. Positioning herself as a
candidate who can unify the party’s pro-
gressive and centrist wings has made nei-
ther one flap. After her fourth-place finish
in New Hampshire, Ms Warren pulled her
tv advertising in South Carolina, tele-
graphing pessimism about the outcome.
Mr Buttigieg has six field offices and 55
paid staff in-state, which outside Bloom-
berg-land counts as a sizeable operation.
He has picked up at least one prominent
backer. J.A. Moore, a young legislator who
had backed Kamala Harris, endorsed Mr
Buttigieg because in their conversations,
“he listened more than he talked”, and “he
can restore some grace and dignity to the
office of president.” But he has still strug-
gled mightily with African-American vot-
ers. Lauren Brown, his South Carolina
spokesman, says his campaign is “looking
at veterans, people of faith, rural voters—
communities that cut across race”. That too
sounds like expectations-lowering.
Ms Klobuchar’s presence in South Caro-
lina, by contrast, is hardly detectable. A
pro-Klobuchar Superpac is spending
heavily on ads here and in Super Tuesday
states. But she has no in-state endorse-
ments, and has held fewer events than Ka-
mala Harris and Mr Booker, neither of
whom remains in the race.
If neither Mr Biden, Ms Klobuchar nor
Mr Buttigieg can make the case that they
are the best hope of the majority of Demo-
crats—who do not yearn for socialism—
they could still divide that part of the party
into units so small that Mr Sanders is able
to build up a commanding lead. That could
set up a contest between Mr Sanders and
Mr Bloomberg, and make the 2016 Demo-
cratic primary, which seemed bitter
enough at the time, look like a love-in. 7I
n one sense, political debates are eva-
nescent. Six candidates squared off in Las
Vegas on February 19th—the ninth such de-
bate—ahead of the Nevada caucuses on
February 22nd. They will spar again on Feb-
ruary 25th, ahead of the primaries in South
Carolina and the delegate-rich Super Tues-
day primaries. But some debates matter
more than others, and the one in Las Vegas
came at an important moment in the
Democratic campaign to choose a candi-
date to challenge President Donald Trump.
Ever since Bernie Sanders’s impressive
performances in Iowa and New Hamp-
shire, many Democrats have worried that
nominating a self-declared socialist will
cost them the election and their House ma-
jority. So in Las Vegas all eyes were on Mike
Bloomberg, a billionaire former mayor of
New York who has been closing the gap
with Mr Sanders in the polls through an un-
orthodox self-funded advertising blitz. Mr
Bloomberg is not standing in Nevada—he
will enter the fray on Super Tuesday—but
in Las Vegas he appeared on the campaign
stage for the first time. The question was:
how would he perform, and how would the
other candidates react to him?
Elizabeth Warren answered the second
question immediately, ripping into Mr
Bloomberg for having made sexist re-
marks. Later, Ms Warren pressed Mr
Bloomberg to release women who worked
for him from non-disclosure agreementsthey had signed. Mr Bloomberg refused,
saying “Maybe they didn’t like a joke I told,”
and, finally, that the agreements “were
made consensually” and he would not void
them. That answer was smug, mandarin
and indifferent.
Debates are not Mr Bloomberg’s strong
suit. He is not particularly charismatic, and
perhaps the world’s 12th richest man, the
founder of one of the world’s most promi-
nent media and finance companies, does
not often encounter people who disagree
with him. Still, his flat-footedness in re-
sponding to this predictable question was
surprising. His answer when challenged
about stop-and-frisk—another predictable
line—was too exculpatory and defensive.
He was, though, the only candidate who
really traded punches with Mr Sanders.
Neither knocked the other off stride—nei-
ther man is lacking in self-assuredness—
and their skirmishes here may have pre-
saged the rest of the primary campaign.
Oddly, Mr Bloomberg also seemed re-
luctant to trumpet all the good he has done.
He has a record of giving generously to lib-
eral candidates and causes, and of climate-
change activism and philanthropy. Yet, he
gave boilerplate answers when he has a far
more substantive environmental record
than anyone else on stage.
His closing statement made clear that
he views the presidency as, in essence, a
managerial role. It is certainly that, but not
solely. Presidents must also inspire, lead
and set the country’s tone. Perhaps enough
Americans are yearning for quiet compe-
tence that they will be happy to pull the le-
ver for a capable technocrat, and let the bul-
ly pulpit sit quiet for a while. He certainly
came as a relief to many New Yorkers after
the Sturm-und-Drang mayoralty of Rudy
Giuliani. But it is quite a gamble. Being
slightly quicker on his feet would help. 7Michael Bloomberg gives an
unconvincing performance in NevadaThe Democratic debateMike drop
Say hello, wave goodbye