Michael Bloomberg may make a better president than Donald Trump – but even he’s not sure he can win

In the battle of the billionaires, Michael Bloomberg is a good bet to beat Donald Trump. The problem is, do the Democrats trust him enough to enter the ring?

Will he, won’t he? Among the many running US political stories of the past few months one of the most durable has been whether Michael Bloomberg will seek the Democratic nomination for president. He has been a bit of a tease, saying he wouldn’t in March, then hinting he would, asking close colleagues what they thought about the idea, and I understand genuinely worrying whether this would be a masterstroke to save the nation, or a seriously bad idea.

On Friday it looked for a moment as though he had come to a decision. He filed the paperwork to enter the primary election in Alabama, having missed the deadlines for the earlier state primaries, including Iowa and New Hampshire. Yesterday he filed paperwork to enter the primary in Arkansas.

But all is not what it seems. This is not a bid; it is more an insurance policy. If any of the present candidates establishes a substantial lead in the first few primaries and he believes they might beat Donald Trump (assuming, not certain, that the Donald is still in office and the Republican candidate) then he can step back. If not, then he can still have a crack at it.

The story – and Bloomberg’s indecision – is fascinating at several different levels. He has huge name recognition in the US, partly because of his wealth, partly because he was a successful mayor of New York, and partly because of the importance of his media empire. His company, Bloomberg LP, makes most of its money from its dealing terminals, which sit on the desks of just about every financial analyst and trader in the world. But also employs a lot of journalists, some 2,700, which I understand (it is hard to check) is more than any other enterprise in the developed world.

His wealth, upwards of $50bn, means that money for a presidential run is not an issue. His time as mayor of New York gives him the practical credibility that he can do a political job as well as a business one. And as for the media empire, while he would step back from it as he did while mayor, it does guarantee huge attention.

Many people would add a further advantage: he could do the job of president better than the present chap.

These are huge strengths, but against them are huge weaknesses. He himself has asked, why would people vote for “a short, Jewish, divorced billionaire”? But those would not really be the problems. His chief difficulty is that he is not a loyal Democrat. He has switched sides, he has not put in the time for the party, and even now he is not bothering to stand in the early primaries. That comes over as snooty.

There is a cussedness in American politics. There always has been but it is particularly evident now. That cussedness allowed Donald Trump to get the Republican nomination and then the presidency. Now it is pushing forward Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat senator from Massachusetts, as an ultra-liberal antidote to Trump. It is as though the Democrats are saying: “You had your far-right candidate and he won, so we’ll go for a far-left one to teach you a lesson.”

It is the fear that this cussedness might lead the Democrats to pick a loser that has been troubling Michael Bloomberg. He is particularly appalled by Warren’s vocal attack on wealth, calling for a tax of 2 per cent on fortunes of more than $50m, because he sees that as an attack on aspiration. (My own view is that the US must do something on wealth inequality, but there are much better ways of doing so by closing the tax code’s absurdly wide loopholes, rather than bringing in a politically charged new tax.)

Besides, Warren would be offering a different sort of privilege, for she was a Harvard law professor (and is married to one) before she ran for the senate. If Donald Trump sets half of America’s teeth on edge, the east coast intellectual aristocracy certainly riles the other half.

It would be dispiriting if the choice for president were between two elderly, white, male, New York-based billionaires, albeit one much, much richer than the other. And that, in the end, is why Michael Bloomberg will not get the Democrat nomination. And that, surely, will be a relief for everyone – including eventually himself.

Michael Bloomberg is a huge success. He is 77. He has time to do many more things. He will in any case be remembered for his successes. An unsuccessful run for president? Not a great way to cap an otherwise great career.