While I prefer someone with a lower to mid middle-class background, selection of political leaders by the Left from upper 20% to 5% has been a way for the Left to accommodate the Right's belief that dollars equate to brain-cells, or that "we have the most money, we therefore have the most to lose, so we should have a greater right to rule."
All of those myths have increasingly infused the thinking of certain factions within the GOP. Since the political campaign system has been corrupted with money since the 19th century, it would be considered a status-quo that can only be ameliorated by playing the game of competing in the money arena. While Warren and others have done well to refuse PAC and contributor funding to finance their campaigns, being in the thrall of special-interest contributors is not a necessary outcome, although it could be more likely according to the "follow-the-money" principle.
Remember that the Right tried accusing Hillary for pandering to various contributors simply by accepting large reimbursements for speaking engagements. One of their tactics is to initiate accusations against its own excesses before the Dems can raise the issue -- in a manner of speaking -- beating them to the punch. The public opinion dynamic in a sub-discussion of the "money and politics" issue is therefore different, although the degree and number of corruption scandals by Republicans generates enough news anyway to raise suspicions of more people.
Among the myths is the "unsusceptibility to bribery" folklore: "He has his own money, so he cannot be corrupted; it's the poor guy that you have to watch out for." This latter idea applies the real perception of banana-republic ethics to American culture, disparaging the right of the masses to rule in proportion to their sheer numbers. It dovetails with the idea that people of humble means can never be as smart or informed as those at the top of the socio-economic pyramid.
But despite the myth which we see shattered by Trump's stupidity, lack of education despite high schooling opportunities, his malignant narcissism and lack of empathy, his failure to pay attention to numbers, facts and statistics, his "gamble-from-the-gut" instincts about risk and his aversion to using a staff to advantage or accept conflicting opinions or conclusions -- it is possible to find someone who actually fills the bill for having started from little and focusing their brain, aptitude and learning toward the goal of making money.
Bloomberg got his BS in electrical engineering. He was the son of a Jewish book-keeper employed by a dairy corporation with a network of dairy-farms. They could call his father a book-keeper, but this was Bloomberg's exposure to accounting and business early in life. After undergraduate years at Johns Hopkins, he went to Harvard Business School, quickly rose in the ranks of Wall Street investment firms, and soon realized and understood a need and demand that could be filled with great profit: instant, computerized information about stocks, bonds, and other instruments that are traded up and down Wall Street by other companies. He variously stepped in and out of the CEO role, but the recent profitability of his company over the last ten years has raised notice in the financial community.
He is also a passionate philanthropist, more like Bill Gates, and so unlike the scam-artist and tax-fraud Trump, who misused his own charity to commission a painting of himself to hang in his own building.
Finally, managing a government like the city of New York as mayor might as well be a responsibility in the same magnitude of leading a nation-state, even for lack of a standing army or the ambassadorial dimension of international relations. Without a need to maintain diplomatic relations with a foreign state, New York is nevertheless the headquarters of the UN and the World Bank. And while the news gave at least as much time to Bush 43 in the wake of 9-11, Bloomberg was in the thick of it. If you want someone to stabilize and regulate financial markets, Bloomberg's experience would serve well.
If you can trust the man's integrity and sincerity, he could begin to assist squaring away this costly mess Trump has created. Maybe he could pick someone like Buttigieg or Steyer for a running mate, but even better -- he could enlist Warren or Klobuchar. There are many unifying possibilities, limited only by the participants' egos.
I say, in this desperate situation with the clock ticking toward greater and greater risk as a megalomaniac spins wider arcs of destruction and damage, Bloomberg could be a Machiavellian choice that still offers progressive promise parallel to a Warren or Sanders presidency. It addresses the fundamental issue without dismissing serious issues raised in the debates. And any administration by someone like Bloomberg could attempt to draft the talents of other candidates who lose the primary.
So you could say -- on behalf of another candidate choice -- that Bloomberg is merely attempting to buy the election. But do you really think that either Steyer or Bloomberg are not averse to putting their own interests ahead of the country's, as Trump has demonstrated consistently through both his campaign and tenure? I think they simply see a need, and want to fill it out of mostly altruism.
It is less important at this time to turn the Ship of State in the most prudent direction, and more important to keep it from capsizing. There is a long and hard road ahead -- you could compare it to the reconstruction of post-war Europe. The one least discussed but implied much in the recent news happens to be restoring the morale and expertise in the career civil service, and putting so many things back on track such as the State Department, the Treasury and IRS, the EPA. Even OPM deserves attention, as Trump's people have decimated some areas of expertise there which keeps a watchful eye on behaviors and sub-cultures in all the various agencies. OPM itself could use a makeover.
We want our government returned to the same or better operation and effectiveness that it had before Trump. Who, for instance, do you think Bloomberg would pick to replace Betsy DeVos or Ben Carson? Both of those cabinet members are totally unprepared for the leadership they've been assigned to provide. In practical terms, DeVos has absolutely no value to good government and Carson should go back to neuro-surgery.
The GOP has taken us into a sinkhole by trying to sabotage and undermine government at the federal level by other than legislative means. But nobody ever wrote a statute defining malicious mismanagement as a crime with penalties. The federal level must all be repaired. Only in a good state of repair can it be moved forward toward truly progressive objectives with the best outcomes. Who is best prepared to see the biggest picture of it all?