from that piece, these quotes from his former aide Sheinkopf and strategist Strother is along the lines of what I was guessing:

It was only recently that South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg “suddenly became a player,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic strategist who worked on Bloomberg’s last mayoral campaign.

“Bloomberg is a very smart guy who calculates very clearly,” Scheinkopf said. “No one thought he would win the New York City mayoralty. He did. Nobody thought he could win a third term. He did.”

Even a losing run could reshape the dynamics of the race. Bloomberg could claw moderate support from Biden if he becomes a serious contender. Or, if he runs but does not crack the top tier, his candidacy could help Biden by spending on messaging against causes championed by more progressive Democrats in the race.

“Thus far in the primary we’ve seen really a race to the fringe — who could be the most progressive, almost a game of one-upmanship,” said Colin Strother, a veteran Democratic strategist. “What we haven’t talked a lot about is electability … That basically seems to be his rationale for even entertaining this idea.”

“This is a big boon for the Joe Bidens of the world,” Strother said. “This is good for the Amy Klobuchars of the world. It’s going to be bad for the Bernies and the Warrens.”

One Democratic manager of Senate and House campaigns said of Bloomberg’s entry into the race, “He’s basically Biden’s Super PAC.”

Just from knowing him as one of his constituents for 3 terms. Not saying anything pro or agin, saying he doesn't have passion that he wants to win this more than anything in the world. As I said, he's got a savior complex. And he hires the best. And what he's being told makes him worry that the way things are going, it might turn out a situation where Trump might win. So it's like an insurance policy attitude. He won't try to destroy any of the moderates and will try not to be a spoiler for them if they are doing what he thinks will win.  As it implies elsewhere, he'll basically wait to until Super Tuesday to go full bore if he thinks it's needed.

Basically the thing I want to say is that he wouldn't purposely be a spoiler. The problem is whether he will be judging correctly about being a spoiler.

Anyone can assume anything. But to get people to consider them they need some sort of convincing evidence.

Let us assume that if we elect Warren president Jesus Christ will come down from heaven and smite all the evil doers, which by coincidence include all televangelists. He will then cause all nuclear weapons to disappear. He will give us the secret of fusion energy, a clean carbon free unlimited supply.

Should that sort of influence our decision? Or perhaps before we make any of these assumptions we actually offer supporting evidence that our assumptions have some basis in reality.

Remember what assuming does to you and me.

The Democratic field is fine. Issues are being discussed. Democrats made advancements in the midterms and in the 2019:elections. There is no great white savior. The next president will have to work to reverse the damage done by Trump. Bloomberg is dodging South Carolina. He has to gain black support. He will have to explain Stop and Frisk, just as Buttigieg has to explain police abuse in South Bend and Kamala Harris has to explain her tenure as DA and AG. Why should black voters trust Bloomberg?

If the current roster of Democrats cannot defeat Trump, the country is already lost. The current Democratic roster has environmental agendas. Why would I want the Stop and Frisk guy in charge of federal law enforcement?