That being said, Bloomberg entered the Democratic primary very late and does not own one of the largest propaganda machines in the world. If done right, Zuckerberg might have a decent shot. After all, Bloomberg achieved ~18% [1] in the polls despite his late entry.
He and Schulz winged it and treated it like a jock treats finals. “I’ll pull an all-nighter and I’ll get an A”. Nope like most people who don’t show up for class and do an all-nighter, they got a D- and failed.
I wouldn’t completely agree with that. From most sources, Bloomberg wanted to run even in 2016, and did a lot of work on that front, till the end when he somehow changed tack to “not split the vote”.
While he did officially make a late entry in the race, started throwing a lot of money and research power quite early. It just so happened that the American public looks at more factors than just a lot of money.
To me they both seemed woefully underprepared and at a loss for answers when the spotlight was put on them during debates.
I guess executives delegate a lot , so much that on their own they might feel exposed and unprepared because there is no one to assist, at least when thrust into unfamiliar ground.
Bloomberg's basic problem is that people in Iowa hate his personality. Had he actually put in the work, being a billionaire may well have been enough if not for having a major disqualifier like that.