impossible, you say? in this crazy year, what<u+2019>s impossible? against trump and sanders, bloomberg could win. here<u+2019>s how.









bloomberg decided to run back in march of 2016 only when he saw that trump and sanders were on track to be nominated by the republicans and democrats. he viewed both as dangerous men who would wreck the country. and bloomberg saw a path. he thought voters would eventually see that he had been a highly successful mayor of a city larger than all but a handful of states and was far more fit for high office than either of them. he would run as an unprecedented blend of insider and outsider<u+2014>representing elites but smashing the two-party status quo that voters despised.









the journey began in mid-winter. after trump plastered the field in new hampshire on feb. 9 and won by double digits on feb. 20 in south carolina, republicans proved powerless to resist his hostile takeover of their party. with his opposition divided, trump edged ted cruz in home state texas on march 1, and then, on march 15, marco rubio in home state florida and john kasich in ohio, all but eliminating all three. by then the die was cast on the republican side, though americans and millions watching around the world still had to slap themselves to prove they weren<u+2019>t dreaming.









democrats suddenly had to do the same in their party. sanders won 60 percent of the vote in the new hampshire primary, romping not just with young liberals but even older moderate women who were supposed to be hillary<u+2019>s base. clinton prevailed in the nevada caucuses by five points on feb. 20, but sanders showed surprising strength outside his base with latino voters. when hillary won by a much smaller margin than expected in south carolina on feb. 27, it showed that bernie would also avoid being overwhelmed by pro-hillary african-american voters in the big industrial states.









after nevada and south carolina, party leaders breathed a sigh of relief thinking hillary was home safe, but that<u+2019>s always the moment with the clintons when new voter doubts about them set in. hillary is best when she<u+2019>s in trouble and worst when sitting on a lead. she underperformed badly on super tuesday, losing massachusetts by a big margin (she had trailed there in the polls for weeks) and, shockingly, texas, where the state<u+2019>s longstanding populist tradition returned with a vengeance. on march 8, sanders carried michigan, which had gone for jesse jackson in 1988. that gave him momentum the following week to come close in hillary<u+2019>s home state of illinois and to carry ohio, where he reminded democrats of their populist senator, sherrod brown, though brown supported hillary.









bloomberg easily won all three of the fall debates. he was far more knowledgeable than trump, who continued his pattern of not preparing on issues. when trump predictably tried to belittle bloomberg, he failed badly. bloomberg was no <u+201c>loser<u+201d> in the only way trump ever kept score. and the fear arguments fell flat with a mayor who had rebuilt new york after the 9/11 attacks. meanwhile, bloomberg schooled sanders on how to create jobs and make the economy grow, eviscerating his plans as unaffordable and leading to tax increases on the middle class.
here<u+2019>s how michael bloomberg becomes president
noauthor