Ever since billionaire Michael Bloomberg entered the Democratic primary for President, many digital commentators have written some very concerning critiques of his record as a former Republican activist and as mayor of New York City.

Despite these criticisms, various Democratic primary voters, celebrities, and Instagram influencers continue to support his candidacy. Many do so out of an adamant belief that Bloomberg is a sure bet to defeat Trump in the general election, and nothing matters more than beating Trump.

Michael Bloomberg, they reason, is a “moderate Democrat” who allegedly will appeal to swing voters. In addition, his status as a billionaire means he can flood the airwaves and social media with advertisements. Surely, with unlimited funds and an allegedly “moderate” record, Bloomberg will be able to defeat Trump, right?

Wrong.

If Bloomberg somehow wins the Democratic nomination, he will lose to Trump.

The evidence pointing to a looming loss is staggering and obvious. All the bad omens are hanging right before our eyes, delicious fruit waiting to be plucked and devoured by the Trump re-election campaign team.

As a liberal Democrat who very much wants to defeat Trump, I am growing increasingly concerned that members of the Democratic establishment, media pundits, and Trump-terrified voters are spreading a highly dangerous lie: that Michael Bloomberg will win.

In a primary election dominated by talk of “electability,” it seems nobody has taken the time to genuinely evaluate Bloomberg’s strengths and weaknesses as a general election candidate. It’s almost as if because he’s a billionaire and an ex-Republican, everyone assumes swing voters will flock to him.

Such an assumption, however, fundamentally misunderstands swing voters. Swing voters are not attracted to candidates because of centrist policy positions or even any particular ideology. They tend to vote based on their sense of a candidate, his or her credibility. Oftentimes, their votes come down to the vague sense of “relatability” — a word that a billionaire Wall Street tycoon generally does not bring to mind.

A fair evaluation of Michael Bloomberg’s life story, highlights from his time as a mayor, his career as a businessman, and his efforts as a political activist all provide many indications of a loss to Donald Trump. To be clear, I am not talking about my personal opinion of his record. I am referring to whether the ethos of someone like Bloomberg is “electable,” for lack of a better term.

So forget the horrible, non-progressive nature of his record as mayor: he just isn’t suited for politics at the federal level and seems likely to lose in November. For that reason alone, nobody should support his candidacy.

Allow me to recount just a few of the signs that Bloomberg will lose to Trump:

1. Bloomberg is Literally a Globalist Elitist Billionaire — One of Trump’s Most Effective Attack Lines in 2016

Remember the Trump attack ads of 2016? Remember his closing attack ad, in which he showed images of Wall Street, money, and Hillary Clinton shaking hands with foreign leaders? Remember how he attacked “global special interests” while showing George Soros and Janet Yellen, two prominent Jewish Americans in finance?

How do you think Michael Bloomberg fits into this attack ad?

If Michael Bloomberg becomes the nominee for President, Donald Trump could run the exact same attack ad except replacing all the images of Hillary with an actual Wall Street billionaire. He can make the exact same argument to the American people that allowed him to win in 2016. And as much as I hate to admit it, his argument clearly worked: the majority of voters in 2016 who made up their minds in the final days of the election chose to vote for Trump.

Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee needs to be prepared to combat this same message. Standing up to the globalist elites who want to impose a New World Order is a key tenet of the “Keep America Great Again” philosophy. No matter who becomes the nominee, Trump will use some version of this message to drive his re-election campaign.

Instead of combating this message, Bloomberg’s mere existence as a billionaire from finance who supports liberal “globalist” ideas will play into Trump’s message. Those voters who make up their minds at the last minute will likely feel as though they cannot trust Bloomberg because of this same line of attack.

I cannot stress this first point enough: this message is the main reason Trump won initially, and its effectiveness will only increase when deployed against a candidate like Bloomberg. So really, stop me now! You shouldn’t need any other reasons to see how Bloomberg will lose to Trump.

But in case you aren’t convinced by this point alone, well, of course, there are even more reasons why Bloomberg will lose…

2. Bloomberg Will Be Associated With Soda Taxes, Protecting Illegal Immigrants, Taking Away Guns, and Other Issues that Galvanize Conservatives and Turn Off Swing Voters

How well do you think the idea of a “soda tax” polls in Michigan?

How well do you think the term “gun control” polls in Wisconsin?

How do you think folks in North Carolina will respond to the accusation that Bloomberg signed an executive order as mayor forbidding city employees from asking “illegal immigrants” if they were illegal?

Personally, I am for taxing excessively sugary drinks, support new gun safety laws, and believe in supporting undocumented immigrants. But the conservative attack ads write themselves: Michael Bloomberg is an extremist liberal who will tax your Slurpee, repeal the 2nd Amendment, and choose illegal immigrants over “real Americans.”

Having never run in an election outside New York City, it’s debatable whether Bloomberg is remotely prepared for these lines of attacks. But it is hard to imagine anything Bloomberg could say to combat these talking points, as they’re not only reflective of his record; these attacks address the very things he became known for as mayor.

In all likelihood, these issues will galvanize conservative voters, helping cause an increase in conservative turnout compared to 2016. NRA members, fast food aficionados, and diehard Trumpists who chant “Build the Wall!” at rallies will seethe with rage over these issues.

In addition, these issues will make Bloomberg unappealing to swing voters in Middle America, as they all give a general sense of a guy trying to use the government to push an elitist agenda. No matter how “moderate” or “independent” Bloomberg claims to be in his slick commercials, these policy stances are not winning messages with swing voters, especially after conservatives present them as an infringement on your God-given American rights to shoot, eat, and feel good about being white.

3. Bloomberg’s Unsavory Past Will Turn Off Progressive Voters and Young People of Color

Any electoral calculation for a Bloomberg nomination must consider the harsh reality that some voters are diehard progressives who simply won’t turn out for someone who is ideologically impure. I’m of the opinion that all Americans should “Vote Blue No Matter Who.” Sadly, many of our fellow “progressive” voters see things differently.

In 2016, we saw this exact same phenomenon with Hillary Clinton. Regardless of whether you believe their reasoning was fair or accurate, many voters who were young, liberal, and/or people of color did not bother to show up for Hillary and thus contributed to her defeat.

While an assessment of Bloomberg is not about Hillary Clinton, her performance in 2016 can serve as a baseline. With that in mind, we should acknowledge that Hillary Clinton’s record on progressive policies and issues of race is significantly better than Michael Bloomberg’s. Consider the following:

While Hillary merely reluctantly voted to authorize the Iraq War, Bloomberg endorsed the man who started it in the 2004 Presidential elections.

While Hillary merely advocated for pragmatism and compromise with Republicans, Bloomberg endorsed, donated to, and campaigned for conservative Republicans in 2016 and 2018, aiding their political power in Congress.

While Hillary supported a now disreputable anti-crime, pro-incarceration bill in the 1990s, Bloomberg enforced actual policy to lock men of color up in New York City and has defended the practice with racist beliefs as recently as 2015.

In 2016, Republicans and Trump used some of the aforementioned talking points against Hillary Clinton to help disenchant young voters, liberal voters, and voters of color. And it worked: many of these voters did not cast ballots in the 2016 elections.

If the comparatively more mild criticisms of Hillary Clinton resulted in millions of these voters not bothering to cast a ballot in 2016, why would they be any more likely to support a Bloomberg candidacy? If anything, a Bloomberg candidacy may create an even lower liberal turnout in 2020 than in 2016, especially if the Trump campaign uses conduit social media accounts to blasts these talking point to progressive-leaning voters.

However, at a bare minimum, it seems very clear that a Bloomberg candidacy will win back close to none of the voters who sat out 2016 because Hillary wasn’t, in their opinion, “progressive enough.” The absence of these voters means Bloomberg has to make gains elsewhere, and as mentioned in my first two points, the chances of that happening are low.

But wait! There are even more reasons why Bloomberg is likely to lose…

4. Bloomberg is Not Good at Connecting with the Public

Have you seen what Bloomberg’s political rallies look like?

No, you probably haven’t, because most likely, he hasn’t held one in your town. But the few rallies he has held so far have not gone well, with only 50 showing up to one rally in liberal San Antonio, even though it featured Judge Judy. Considering he has 150 staffers in Texas, all these attendees very well may have been staffers.

Rallies don’t vote and often are a bit overrated as a measure of political popularity. However, the fact he is flailing in his opportunities to talk to voters indicates a lack of understanding of how a politician earns trust with swing voters.

So far, Bloomberg has primarily used political ads to introduce himself to voters. Political ads, generally speaking, are useful in getting a message out to voters. Repeated political ads instill that message over time. But the ads alone do not build trust with general election voters, and simply knowing a candidate’s message does not translate into developing a preference for them.

Whoever becomes the nominee needs to make themselves seem connected to the general public. Events with only 50 attendees in big, liberal cities don’t cut it. The signs from Bloomberg’s campaign so far indicate this is a major area of weakness, and it should be concerning to all Democrats who want to defeat Trump.

5. Bloomberg’s Wealth and Willingness to Spend Money on His Campaign Creates Only a Limited Electoral Advantage

Many of those who have fallen for Bloomberg cite his ability to spend money on his own campaign as a reason for victory. Surely, if he outspends Trump, he will win the election.

However, political spending eventually reaches a threshold on effectiveness. There actually is significant academic research, as often discussed on the podcast Freakonomics, indicating that in congressional elections, political spending ends up having limited effectiveness.

Let me be clear: spending money matters. The repeated, endless political ads on TV do create impressions of candidates and spread their message. The paid canvassers knocking on doors and talking to voters do boost turnout. But after spending a certain amount of money, there becomes a negligible return on investment.

In other words, those who fear oligarchs buying our democracy can relax a bit: money alone does not determine electoral outcomes. We should all already know this given that the candidate who spent the most money in the last Presidential election did, in fact, lose.

However, this reality also means that Bloomberg’s wealth by itself will not make up for the four previously noted major failings with Bloomberg’s candidacy. Money alone cannot change who Bloomberg is and how he is perceived by the public. And his public perception seems likely to take a hit for another reason…

6. The Skeletons Are Waiting to Burst Out of the Closet

Truthfully, we don’t know what we don’t know about Michael Bloomberg. But opposition research firms probably do know a thing or two.

Having had a messy career in finance, Bloomberg likely has invested in nefarious entities. He probably has had a hand in a layoff here, some outsourcing there, with a little bit of speculation on the side. Being the head of a company with tens of thousands employees also means there have been an HR scandal or two.

In addition, his track record as a former Republican politician creates a complicated policy record for voters to understand. For the purpose of assessing electability, let’s be less concerned about how progressive his record is and more concerned with whether his record will make sense to voters. Let’s not forget that accusations of politicians being “flip floppers”, unfair as they may be, have helped sink the candidacies of John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton. The backtracking makes the candidate seem artificial, inauthentic, and untrustworthy.

So as Presidential candidates introduce themselves to the public, their history becomes a part of their story. Political “skeletons” of old policy stances create the distrust that turns off swing voters, as do past scandals believed to have been buried.

In recent weeks, we’ve seen a preview of the skeletons to come. A Washington Post reporter started to uncover allegations of sexism and sexual harassment. An AP news reporter unearthed comments blaming Black families and the end of redlining for causing the 2008 housing crisis.

I don’t know what else will come out about Bloomberg’s political and business careers, but I have no doubt that a) these recent revelations are only the tip of the iceberg, and b) future revelations will harm his standing with the American electorate.

A Brief Note about the Polls Showing Bloomberg Beating Trump

I am certain that some folks who support Bloomberg will read this piece and write everything I say off because current national polling shows Bloomberg beating Trump. He also beats Trump in some key swing state polls.

To this, I ask a few important questions: how many attack ads have Republicans run about Bloomberg’s soda tax? About his leniency toward “illegal immigrants”? About his longstanding gun control efforts?

How many social media ads have been targeted at progressive, unlikely voters, reminding them of Bloomberg’s track record on stop-and-frisk and supporting Republicans?

Has Trump yet aired the updated version of his closing attack ad, in which he calls Michael Bloomberg a globalist elite who wants to buy America and auction it off to the highest foreign buyer? Say, China?

Polling only measures how an electorate feels at a particular moment in time. It’s worth noting that polls in the summer of 2016 had Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by large margins. Similarly, she had yet to feel the full wrath of the conservative attack ad machine.

The question, therefore, is not whether or not Bloomberg would beat Trump today; it’s whether or not Bloomberg would defeat Trump on November 3, 2020. Those are two very different questions, potentially with very different answers, and polling cannot predict the future.

Conclusion: All Signs Point to a Bloomberg Loss to Trump

As a recap, if Bloomberg becomes the nominee, he will:

Be pilloried by the right as a billionaire trying to buy America.

Called a globalist elitist who does not care about you or your family.

Get vilified as a defender of socially liberal causes that will galvanize conservative turnout and make swing voters feel unsure about him.

Disenchant progressives, young people, and young people of color, dampening liberal turnout.

Campaign awkwardly and not connect well with voters.

Spend a ton of money in ways that likely do little to change voters’ minds.

Experience endless news cycles detailing scandals from his past, as more and more information is brought to light about his business and political careers.

In a lot of ways, Bloomberg combines the worst political elements of the candidacies of both Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton: the out-of-touch, elitist businessman and the alleged “sellout” to globalism and Wall Street. Both campaigns ended up being political disasters, where the candidate blew races that supporters perceived as easy wins.

As Bloomberg steamrolls ahead toward Super Tuesday and the DNC Convention in Milwaukee, I fear he is emulating Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney in another way: making a promise of “electability” to Democrats that amounts to a house of cards.

I have done my best to show the myriad ways a Bloomberg candidacy is likely to fail in the general election. I can now only hope that all Democratic primary voters who read this article take note of these points, refrains from voting for Bloomberg, and warns all their friends and family.

Who should you vote for instead of Bloomberg? As far as I’m concerned, that is entirely up to you. I personally like Senator Elizabeth Warren the best. I also think that those who fear a far-left nominee have a potentially safe option in Mayor Pete Buttigieg and a good option in Senator Amy Klobuchar. I do foresee some risks to the candidacies of Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden, but I also believe both have the capacity to defeat Donald Trump.

To be extremely clear: I am not writing this piece out of hatred for Michael Bloomberg, nor out of a desire to nominate any particular candidate. My only agenda is making sure my fellow Democrats nominate a candidate who is capable of defeating Trump. Throughout this article, I have intentionally limited my personal thoughts on his (not very great) past and focused on evaluating his record through the lens of “electability.”

If Michael Bloomberg does become the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for him, if nothing else because of the issue of Climate Change. Bloomberg has committed to rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement and reducing carbon emissions by 50% by 2030. If he somehow becomes President, he will help save our planet.

But the verdict is clear: in all likelihood, he will not become President. And I therefore hope and pray he does not become the Democratic nominee, for a Bloomberg nomination means four more years of Trump as President. No matter how many advertisements he runs, he will not change the intrinsic characteristics of his candidacy that makes him incapable of beating Trump. For that reason alone — and without even touching on controversial topics like his racist stop-and-frisk policy or his 2004 endorsement of George W. Bush — he disqualifies himself as an option for the Democratic nominee. Nobody should vote for him, and those who make that regrettable choice shall only do so at their own peril.