They don't see the process by which we collectively decide how to organize and govern ourselves as something within their control, so they point to somebody who has been quite explicit that he doesn't think control over those decisions is any of our business. We've already got one of those, but Bloomberg is polite and understands the importance of acknowledging liberal shibboleths even as he attempts to limit any of the understandings of human dignity on which those notions are based.

And seeing this arena as outside of our control is a pretty reasonable response to the last several decades of political discourse. The circle of practical and acceptable political outcomes is shrinking rapidly, evidenced pretty clearly by the idea that anything Bernie Sanders believes is radical. The most explicit avenue for political participation, voting, has been valorized to such a high degree that it has successfully excluded other effective forms of political activity like strikes, riots, or assassinations* as not part of rational, civilized discourse. And if you live in the wrong place or you're not white or god forbid both, even your ability to vote has been badly curtailed.

Bloomberg is a fascist, but the one thing we always forget about fascism (until it's too late) is that it's really popular. People like a force that's going to expel the wrong people from public view, particularly if it's hard to pin down who the wrong people are (until it's too late) and we can graft our own imagination onto that process and its eventual, but never quite arriving, manifestation. As long as he can offer what Trump offers, a chance to turn off your brain and live your life without thinking about politics, but do so politely then he's going to get a lot of traction.

*this is a historical point. i'm not advocating anything.