Michael Bloomberg is in the most existential of political positions: Most voters, according to a recent poll, don't want him, and yet are unable to defeat him. A majority believe New York City is going in the wrong direction, and a third of respondents could not name anything Bloomberg has done in his 8 years in office. Nevertheless, he faces no significant opposition in November's election.
This is, of course, because of his money. You can hardly find a purer example than Michael Bloomberg of a politician who bought his job. He was widely forgiven this stark reality because he managed to turn his money into likeability (he was rich but ordinary) for a good part of his first two terms. But now, with the good feelings having faded, he is going on to buy a third term, spending so much dough--$20 million to date--that nobody without $20 billion of his or her own (and there is no one else in New York City with $20 billion) could reasonably run against him.
There are a number of reasons why Michael Bloomberg--who I voted for the second time he ran, and who I continue to rather like--is in trouble (although not in trouble). But none of these reasons involve a failure of policy (just as poll respondents could not name a Bloomberg accomplishment, I'll bet, that if asked, they couldn't have named a failure, either). Rather they are more about an expression of nature.
Continue reading on newser.com