FiveThirtyEight currently gives him a 3% chance of winning a majority of delegates (about as likely as Elizabeth Warren), and an 8% chance of winning a plurality (about as likely as Pete Buttigieg)
so he seems to have at least some chance of becoming the nominee.
1
His most plausible route to victory is managing to rally a group of delegates for other centrist candidates behind him (with some potential help from superdelegates) in a contested (or brokered) convention.
Since he entered the race at a significantly later date than many other candidates, he chose to skip some early states where he felt he stood very little chance and instead focus on later states with a more delegates.
His campaign is aimed at gaining momentum from a strong result on "Super Tuesday".
He has been ineligible to participate in any of the debates so far, as he has met neither the polling requirements, nor the requirements to have donations from a given number of individuals.
The latter requirement has been dropped recently, most likely because it would have prevented him from ever participating (his campaign is entirely self-funded).
He has made up for this by spending significantly more than any other candidate on TV advertising.
1
(It should be noted that due to his unconventional strategy, modelling his chances has an additional degree of uncertainty associated with it.
It should also be noted that these figures will be changing regularly, so you should check the link for up to date projections.)
politics.stackexchange.com/users/23000/CoedRhyfelwr
Only two states have had voted (/whatever
you want to call what happened in Iowa) so far.
Bloomberg was not on those ballots because he did not file.
According to wiki he announced on November 24, 2019.
The filing deadline for some early states had passed- for example New Hampshire was November 12.
Bloomberg did start some filings before he announced, to get on in Alabama, Michigan, and Arkansas for example.
The big delegate haul is "Super Tuesday" March 3 (corrected).
He is on those ballots and has been in California for example campaigning.
It's a risk.
The early states have few delegates but set the tone and momentum.
On the other hand, he does not have to worry about donors abandoning him for a poor/
no showing-
he has one donor (himself).
Momentum is another story.
But hes getting mentioned in the press due to the anticipation.
IMO, Bloomberg will be helped by the apparent demise of Biden in the early states.
Voters and kingmakers looking for an old moderate white guy can slide on over.
We'll see.
For historical reference, other candidates have tried a strategy and failed.
Al Gore (D) in 1988 focused on the southern states of Super Tuesday (he's from Tennessee).
Rudy Giuliani (R) in 2008 campaigned in New Hampshire but was counting on Florida and then New York
and it's neighbors Connecticut and New Jersey to propel him.
Neither was the nominee.
politics.stackexchange.com/users/28303/Damila
Probably the most realistic chance (or more reasonably, least unrealistic) is for the "powers that be" in the DNC to manipulate the convention.
Suppose that there is a strong current of dislike for the front-runner at the convention.
For example, maybe it's Sanders, and people think he's too socialist to win.
They may think that their best shot at defeating Trump is somebody more "establishment.
" This had previously been Biden, but Biden is doing less than stellar.
So the power-brokers might "flex" and pull some dirty tricks.
And Bloomberg might wind up pushed forward.
Whether such a thing would be acceptable and workable would depend on such things as what pressure they could place on the front runner.
For example, Sanders eventually endorsed Clinton.
If they could induce him to do the same for Bloomberg, it might be possible.
It would burn a lot of political capital.
Many people would be very upset over it, just as they were in the case of Sanders vs. Clinton.
But the power-brokers might think it worth it to try to unseat Trump.
politics.stackexchange.com/users/27394/puppetsock
Iowa and New Hampshire are first, but they're also relatively tiny.
According to Wikipedia , there are 3,979 pledged delegates and 771 superdelegates in the Democratic primary.
So far, only Iowa and New Hampshire have voted.
Iowa has 41 (normal, elected) delegates and New Hampshire has 24.
So, around 1.3% of delegates have been decided so far.
Bloomberg presumably decided to let the other candidates spend their money on IA and NH for their relatively small number of delegates and instead focus his campaign on the states that vote on ' Super Tuesday ,' (i.e. March 3.)
While the votes so far were for 65 delegates, the votes on Super Tuesday are for 1,319 delegates, almost 28% of all of the delegates.
A strong performance on Super Tuesday could mean far more for Bloomberg's campaign than one in Iowa or New Hampshire would have.
Given his wealth, notoriety, and political connections, Bloomberg could also end up with a decent amount of support from the Democratic Party's ' superdelegates ,' who are party power brokers who can vote in the convention for whoever they want regardless of primary and caucus votes.
These represent a bit over 16% of the overall delegates, so a strong showing from the superdelegates could also sway the convention significantly toward Bloomberg.
politics.stackexchange.com/users/4846/reirab
Another strike against the super-early states is that their nominations are notoriously wrong Since the caucuses began in 1972, there have been 18 caucus winners between the two parties: 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans.
More than half of those winners went on to secure their party's nomination in that cycle, but only three would go on to be elected president.
After Iowa and New Hampshire, Pete Buttigieg is leading the delegate count at 23, with 1991 needed to win the nomination.
Super Tuesday (which is what Bloomberg is blitzing with media buys) has 1,357 delegates at stake.
Five Thirty Eight currently gives Bloomberg an 8% chance of winning , while Buttigieg (who technically won Iowa in delegates) is at 4%.
Real Clear Politics poll average shows Bloomberg at 14.2% and Buttigieg at 10.6%
politics.stackexchange.com/users/12027/Machavity
I just saw an advertisement on TV: "Bloomberg for president!", but I am not seeing him in any of the primary results.    How can he have any realistic chance of being the Democratic nominee if he's not on the ballot in any of the primaries so far?
How can Michael Bloomberg become the Democratic nominee for President when he has not appeared on any primary ballot so far?
politics.stackexchange.com
<united-states><presidential-election><democratic-primary><michael-bloomberg>
politics.stackexchange.com/questions/50247
politics.stackexchange.com/users/24066/James Jenkins
Probably the most realistic chance is for the "powers that be" in the DNC to manipulate the convention.  Given his wealth, notoriety, and political connections, Bloomberg could also end up with a decent amount of support from the Democratic Party's 'superdelegates', who are party power brokers who can vote in the convention for whoever they want regardless of primary and caucus votes. He can have a realistic chance if manipulation by the "powers that be" is involved and/or if the democratic parties who are power party brokers vote for him regardless of primary or caucus votes. 
He can have a realistic chance if manipulation by the "powers that be" is involved. The democratic parties who are power party brokers may also vote for him regardless of primary or caucus votes. 