Bloomberg for President?

[carlitos]

And compared to what we've experienced in recent years, would that be a bad thing?

Not necessarily, no. I didn't mean to give that impression. I'd prefer that someone like Bloomberg wasn't holding the cards in such a scenario, but as Milton Friedman once said, where in the world do we find these angels that will organize society for us.

 

[carlitos]

That train literally left the station centuries ago.

I see what you did there.

 

[Donal]

Some of what you're describing, like releasing tax returns and accessing presidential records, would be federal crimes, and encouraging people to commit crimes is a crime, too. I doubt Bloomberg would come anywhere close to that.

What he might get away with is offering a reward for outtakes or recordings of "Apprentice" where Trump makes offensive remarks. Their existence has been rumored for years, but they've never actually turned up.

He could offer to pay the legal bills and other protective measures for those who bring credible and legally obtained evidence.

Like maybe the sides pieces who were instructed to have abortions.

 

[ahhell]

I would have less problem voting for Bloomberg if he was the nominee than I would for Buttieig.

I find this quite perplexing, mostly because in the era before Trump, Bloomberg was the worst.

I'm seeing a lot of Bloomberg ads on TV. That being said is he even registering on any polls?

Bloomberg is running an anti-Trump, not a pro-Bloomberg campaign. And he is spending literally hundreds of millions of his own money to do so.

Regardless of whether you want him to become President or not, some thanks are in order as far as I am concerned.

You must be seeing very different adds than I am. The adds I've seen(lots) have all been very clearly vote for bloomberg. Granted, vote for bloomberg because he isn't trump.

Yankistan must look into their collective soul and ponder how it has come to pass that ad buys could have a more potent effect on an election than the fact of an already impeached President whom a (small) majority of folk know to be a villain. I guess far more people catch ads during their voyeuristic "Peeping on the Kardashians" shows than read a paper or watch the news.

At the root, it's utterly ridiculous to be essentially electioneering at the halfway point in a term. Instead, the kickoff should commence no earlier than 6 months before polling day. Even that is being generous; two months is more sensible.

The grotesque piles of cash spent on elections in the US is a wonder to much of the outside world. Rampant, naked capitalism has infected your politics. The nation where money is speech and corporations are people.

In this awful milieu, I welcome a Bloomberg, whose principal motive seems to be to expose a real threat and menace, even if his own prospects of electoral success are slim. To me he's more a team player given his focus on the real enemy and not on internecine squabbling for his own aggrandizement.

There is literally no evidence to suggest that this is in anyway true. Spending on campaigns is very similar to wealth's effect on happiness. That is, after a fairly low point, it has no impact. Trump v Clinton demonstrated that and Bloomberg is currently demonstrating that.

Bloomberg has already offered to donate his staff to the eventual Democratic nominee regardless of who that person is.

That's the only good thing about this. Its a pretty good plan if he doesn't actually intend on running. He gets to spend an unlimited amount building up his campaign, then he can just hand that to the eventual nominee. If that is actually his intent, I don't dislike him nearly as much as I used to.

Bloomberg is not stupid. He's from New York, he has seen first-hand what a train wreck Trump is. He seems to clearly understand the huge danger the U.S. faces with this idiot as president and that it will only get worse over time. A danger that transcends -- or at least should -- party lines and personal ambition. Good for Bloomberg.

I am often surprised by the naivette of some many people. The notion that any of the ******** are anything more than narcissist feeding there ego is amusing. Granted, some might be narcissists feeding there ego and also doing some good, but doing good is secondary at best. Much like political parties, successful parties put getting elected well ahead of ideology and agenda. Its only the third raters like the Greens and Libertarians that put ideology and agenda first.

 

[angrysoba]

Bloomberg and Steyer have a **** ton of money each. That's two **** tons that they are busily spraying out into the ether to basically no effect.

Neither are going to win.

So what could they do with their money that would be of better use?

Well, they might try to help eradicate extreme poverty around the world. Maybe they are spending money on that, too. I don't know. But if they insist on spending it on politics, then, as fivethirtyeight (I think) mentioned, maybe they could spend this cash on either down-ballot votes to get Senators elected, or even further down the ballot on state legislatures in order to overturn laws inspired by Biblical beliefs, such as making abortion much more difficult.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Unfortunate truth. The Democrats don't want an old white rich man to beat Trump. The narrative they are writing where politics and the culture war are treated as the same thing requires a woman, person of color, or "rags to riches" background.

They don't want to beat Trump. They want the right person to beat Trump so the story is what they want to tell. Bloomberg is not that story.

 

[ahhell]

Unfortunate truth. The Democrats don't want an old white rich man to beat Trump. The narrative they are writing where politics and the culture war are treated as the same thing requires a woman, person of color, or "rags to riches" background.

They don't want to beat Trump. They want the right person to beat Trump so the story is what they want to tell. Bloomberg is not that story.

This is true of Democrat twitter, its not true of Democrats in the real world, who really just want to beat Trump by what ever candidate necessary.

 

[Segnosaur]

You must be seeing very different adds than I am. The adds I've seen(lots) have all been very clearly vote for bloomberg. Granted, vote for bloomberg because he isn't trump.

I'm not American, so I haven't seen any of his ads.

But, even if the ads do promote Bloomberg, if they also effectively attack Trump, that will benefit all Democrats even if Bloomberg ends up failing to get the nomination. Saying "Here's how Trump is bad, vote Bloomberg" will hopefully get at least a few voters take away the message "Wait, Trump is bad?"

 

[Segnosaur]

So what could they do with their money that would be of better use?

Well, they might try to help eradicate extreme poverty around the world. Maybe they are spending money on that, too. I don't know.

Bloomberg has donated a lot of money to charitable causes, but he seems to be concentrating on environmental issues, including:
- anti-fracking regulations
- carbon reduction
- shutdown of coal-fired power plants

However, he has also donated to the following causes (either directly or indirectly):
- anti-smoking campaigns
- Various arts groups
- Education infrastructure (e.g. a building on the campus of Cornell univesity)
- Cancer research
- Museums

Looking through the list of donations on Wikipedia, he does seem to be quite generous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Philanthropy

But if they insist on spending it on politics, then, as fivethirtyeight (I think) mentioned, maybe they could spend this cash on either down-ballot votes to get Senators elected, or even further down the ballot on state legislatures in order to overturn laws inspired by Biblical beliefs, such as making abortion much more difficult.

Well, if it helps at all, he has promised to spend up to $10 million to help the re-election of any Democratic congress-critters who might be targeted by the GOP over Trump's impeachment.

 

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

This is true of Democrat twitter, its not true of Democrats in the real world, who really just want to beat Trump by what ever candidate necessary.

I agree. It's one of the points Rick Wilson brought up his book on beating Trump. The voters in the 15 swing states the Dem needs to win back are much more conservative and less "woke" - that's him speaking not me. He used it WAY too much in the book - than what you see on Twitter. As is much of the country, as you say.

 

[Venom]

Unfortunate truth. The Democrats don't want an old white rich man to beat Trump. The narrative they are writing where politics and the culture war are treated as the same thing requires a woman, person of color, or "rags to riches" background.

They don't want to beat Trump. They want the right person to beat Trump so the story is what they want to tell. Bloomberg is not that story.

Which Democrats? Bloomberg came too late in the race. Had he been there since day one and without Biden in the race he'd likely be the front runner along with Sanders and capture most of the centrist support.

 

[Brainster]

I'm not American, so I haven't seen any of his ads.

But, even if the ads do promote Bloomberg, if they also effectively attack Trump, that will benefit all Democrats even if Bloomberg ends up failing to get the nomination. Saying "Here's how Trump is bad, vote Bloomberg" will hopefully get at least a few voters take away the message "Wait, Trump is bad?"

Yeah, I mean it's not as if every media outlet in the country has been shouting that from the rooftops.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm not American, so I haven't seen any of his ads.

But, even if the ads do promote Bloomberg, if they also effectively attack Trump, that will benefit all Democrats even if Bloomberg ends up failing to get the nomination. Saying "Here's how Trump is bad, vote Bloomberg" will hopefully get at least a few voters take away the message "Wait, Trump is bad?"

Yeah, I mean it's not as if every media outlet in the country has been shouting that from the rooftops.

Trump supporters tend to be low-information voters, with a very large streak of ignorance. You can have CNN and MSNBC run programs that highlight Trump's failures 24/7, but it won't register with voters who just don't watch those networks.

Sometimes, a well-produced ad can be as influential as any well-investigated news story. That is what I am hoping for any Bloomberg ads... that such low-information voters see them and the they do an effective job at pointing out how poor of a president Trump is (information they may not get if they get all their news from Fox, Brietbart, and Infowars.)

 

[theprestige]

I'm not American, so I haven't seen any of his ads.

But, even if the ads do promote Bloomberg, if they also effectively attack Trump, that will benefit all Democrats even if Bloomberg ends up failing to get the nomination. Saying "Here's how Trump is bad, vote Bloomberg" will hopefully get at least a few voters take away the message "Wait, Trump is bad?"

I don't know how politics works where you live. Around here, one candidate trashing another in their campaign ads doesn't really prompt a lot of of "well if their political opponent is saying it, there must be something to it!"

 

[Cabbage]

I don't know how politics works where you live. Around here, one candidate trashing another in their campaign ads doesn't really prompt a lot of of "well if their political opponent is saying it, there must be something to it!"

It generally works better when Fox News is saying it, I'll admit. The gullibility level is higher in their audience.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't know how politics works where you live. Around here, one candidate trashing another in their campaign ads doesn't really prompt a lot of of "well if their political opponent is saying it, there must be something to it!"

Willie Horton says hi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton#Horton_in_the_1988_presidential_campaign

More seriously:

From: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180604124913.htm
While many may dread campaign season because of pervasiveness of negative political advertising, a new study has found that negative political advertising actually works...The study authors found that negative advertising is powerful in terms of influencing preferences and voter turnout...

The article does go into a little more details. (In general, negative ads do work better when they come from the candidate's opponent as opposed to a 3rd party, but they still have some effect.)

 

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'm reading an article that talks about how worried the other candidates are getting about how much money Bloomberg is spending, and are criticizing him for trying to buy the election. That argument just doesn't hold any weight with me. They are trying to "buy it" just as much as he is, they just have to go around begging and making the deals for the money they need to pull it off.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm reading an article that talks about how worried the other candidates are getting about how much money Bloomberg is spending, and are criticizing him for trying to buy the election. That argument just doesn't hold any weight with me. They are trying to "buy it" just as much as he is, they just have to go around begging and making the deals for the money they need to pull it off.

True... all candidates require funding (either small donors, or well-funded SuperPACs.)

However, by appealing to small donors and/or attracting volunteers and other support staff, you could then claim that you are working on behalf of 'the party'. Walking in and spending millions on your own campaign does make a candidate seem like they are not beholden to party members.

 

[kookbreaker]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...p-fake-hair-obese-spray-on-tan-little-946685/

I really do not want Bloomberg to win, but I’d be quite happy to see him be a lightning rod for Trumps impotent rage against a bigger billionaire, while also being able to counterpunch much harder than the other candidates.

 

[Bob001]

True... all candidates require funding (either small donors, or well-funded SuperPACs.)

However, by appealing to small donors and/or attracting volunteers and other support staff, you could then claim that you are working on behalf of 'the party'. Walking in and spending millions on your own campaign does make a candidate seem like they are not beholden to party members.

Bloomberg has volunteers and paid staff in offices across the country. Any candidate's ultimate goal is to attract votes, not prove fealty to the party establishment. In 2016, Clinton pretty much bought the DNC, and that didn't really end well.

Some new assessments of Bloomberg:

It’s true that Bloomberg is running differently than everyone else in the race and it’s also true that he’s not a politician in the emotive or empathetic mold of recently successful candidates.

But in fact, Bloomberg does have a message that could appeal to voters, and it’s a simple one: Michael Bloomberg has a greater record of accomplishment in office than any candidate in the race (or in the White House).

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/mike-bloomberg-president-2020.html

Do you choose socialism or capitalism? An ideologue or an executive? Are you really going to ask Americans to trade one extreme for the other, or do you want to offer them a certified, electable moderate?

I’m not saying Democrats would actually choose Bloomberg in that moment. As party affiliations grow weaker nationally, primary electorates grow ever more strident, as we saw in the Republican race four years ago. And there might not be enough money in the world for Bloomberg to buy his way into the good graces of African Americans, a crucial voting bloc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...3134d0-db1e-11e9-a688-303693fb4b0b_story.html