Bloomberg for President?

[TurkeysGhost]

I guess you prefer to let Politicians spend your money to get themselves elected?

Well yes, since they wouldn't have it unless I gave it to them of my own free will.

 

[3point14]

I guess you prefer to let Politicians spend your money to get themselves elected?

Policial parties, rather than politicians, is the usual way that's proposed. I take it that sort of proposal isn't one you have much truck with?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I guess you prefer to let Politicians spend your money to get themselves elected?

BTW, just to make to clear, I don't particularly like either of these things, I don't think that politicians should be taking money from their supporters or paying for their campaigns themselves, though I have to admit, I'd rather see politicians putting up their own money to run than fleecing their supporters, especially when a lot of people can't afford to be giving their money to fund that campaigns of people who are already at least millionaires.

Here Parties get given an amount of money based on their current seats in Parliament, and a few other criteria, that goes towards media advertising, and they aren't allowed to spend more than that on buying their advertising time. Donations to the Party can be given, and used for things such as making the ads, transport and so on, but cannot be spent on buying more advertising time. I believe there is an overall cap on spending, and there is also a quite low cap on how much non-party people and organisations can spend in advertising in an election year.

I don't totally agree with our system either as it means that the biggest parties tend to get the most advertising time, and I'd like to see it made a little fairer, but I do prefer it to having the mega-rich running their campaigns on the backs of the poor that they convince to support them all while not spending any of their own fortunes.

 

[ahhell]

How?

Read my previous posts on the matter.

I thinks it slim chance but it would still be more likely to be productive on that score than running in the Dem primaries. The only reason I responded to the Lol's post with an unsupported assertion is that his response to my previous explanations as to why I think it might was just an unsupported assertion that it wouldn't.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

BTW, just to make to clear, I don't particularly like either of these things, I don't think that politicians should be taking money from their supporters or paying for their campaigns themselves, though I have to admit, I'd rather see politicians putting up their own money to run than fleecing their supporters, especially when a lot of people can't afford to be giving their money to fund that campaigns of people who are already at least millionaires.

Here Parties get given an amount of money based on their current seats in Parliament, and a few other criteria, that goes towards media advertising, and they aren't allowed to spend more than that on buying their advertising time. Donations to the Party can be given, and used for things such as making the ads, transport and so on, but cannot be spent on buying more advertising time. I believe there is an overall cap on spending, and there is also a quite low cap on how much non-party people and organisations can spend in advertising in an election year.

I don't totally agree with our system either as it means that the biggest parties tend to get the most advertising time, and I'd like to see it made a little fairer, but I do prefer it to having the mega-rich running their campaigns on the backs of the poor that they convince to support them all while not spending any of their own fortunes.

You don't see an issue with limiting the field to candidates who are ultra-wealthy enough to plow hundreds of millions of dollars into a political campaign?

Millionaires can't do what Bloomberg is doing. The amount of wealth required to self-finance a campaign makes this a multi-billionaire endeavor.

I don't know how you describe this as anything but plutocracy. The party should not even entertain this idea. It's blatantly a dead end.

 

[carlitos]

In addition to influencers, the Bloomberg campaign is now dropping memes. Content thieves / "creative" agency ****Jerry is working for them. (agency name can't be posted here - rhymes with "Stuck Jerry")

Dank Bloomberg memes today. I like the Sanders photo one a lot.

Next up - a Bloomberg-themed music festival on a private island with cheese sandwiches.

 

[theprestige]

Read my previous posts on the matter.

I thinks it slim chance but it would still be more likely to be productive on that score than running in the Dem primaries. The only reason I responded to the Lol's post with an unsupported assertion is that his response to my previous explanations as to why I think it might was just an unsupported assertion that it wouldn't.

Your previous post doesn't illuminate, I'm afraid. Be productive how?

I gather you think it's possible that if Bloomberg ran in the GOP primaries, it would somehow cost Trump votes in the general election. I'm asking, what's the somehow you envision?

 

[carlitos]

GOP re-election candidates have definitely been weakened by challenges from the right, but not (that I'm aware of) from the left. See Pat Buchanan vs. George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan vs. Gerald Ford. Neither won the general after a primary fight.

 

[ahhell]

Your previous post doesn't illuminate, I'm afraid. Be productive how?

I gather you think it's possible that if Bloomberg ran in the GOP primaries, it would somehow cost Trump votes in the general election. I'm asking, what's the somehow you envision?

Posts, plural, wtf in case it was in another thread.

There is a history of sitting presidents that were challenged in their own party's primaries going on to defeat in the general; Ford, Carter, Bush.

Now, it can be argued that they were challenged because they were weak, but still there is that history.
Bloomberg is very unlikely to actually have an impact in the Dem primary. I could be wrong but I doubt it. He's spending most of his money in CA.
So, he's unlikely to have much impact in Dem primary, unless he weakens the eventual candidate, he might have an impact in the GOP primary. Perhaps, convincing a few reps not to vote in the election by making Trump look weak or just make clear what a ****** republican he actually is.

So, short version, I think the only impact Bloomberg will actually have is to weaken the eventual candidate of the party he's running in by making them look bad or weak as a candidate. I'd rather that be the GOP. As I have said elsewhere, I think the differences are all marginal but on the chance he will have an impact, I'd prefer he were running as a Rep right now.

So, why should he run as Dem?

 

[PhantomWolf]

You don't see an issue with limiting the field to candidates who are ultra-wealthy enough to plow hundreds of millions of dollars into a political campaign?

Millionaires can't do what Bloomberg is doing. The amount of wealth required to self-finance a campaign makes this a multi-billionaire endeavor.

I don't know how you describe this as anything but plutocracy. The party should not even entertain this idea. It's blatantly a dead end.

I think you need to reread my post and see what I actually said.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I’m not sure why anyone is suggesting he should have run as a Republican. “Stop and frisk” aside, on the current US political spectrum he’s a mainstream Democrat not a Republican.

I'm not sure of many mainstream democrats who have spent $11.7M to make sure that an incumbent Republican Senator gets reelected, insuring that Mitch McConnell has a strong majority in the Senate.

If you like what Mitch is doing in the Senate, you can thank Bloomberg for helping him out.

 

[Dr. Keith]

GOP re-election candidates have definitely been weakened by challenges from the right, but not (that I'm aware of) from the left. See Pat Buchanan vs. George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan vs. Gerald Ford. Neither won the general after a primary fight.

Yep, give those who are in the GOP but embarrassed by Trump some voice, a candidate to rally around. Bloomberg would be perfect for that.

And once Trump started calling them all names they would be unlikely to show up for Trump in the general. But, if they just feel alone in their shame, they may still feel compelled by party loyalty to show up on general election day and pull the lever for the GOP, even reluctantly.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm not sure of many mainstream democrats who have spent $11.7M to make sure that an incumbent Republican Senator gets reelected, insuring that Mitch McConnell has a strong majority in the Senate.

If you like what Mitch is doing in the Senate, you can thank Bloomberg for helping him out.

Isn't it equally (or even more) true that we can thank him for helping Pelosi out?

 

[theprestige]

Posts, plural, wtf in case it was in another thread.

There is a history of sitting presidents that were challenged in their own party's primaries going on to defeat in the general; Ford, Carter, Bush.

Now, it can be argued that they were challenged because they were weak, but still there is that history.
Bloomberg is very unlikely to actually have an impact in the Dem primary. I could be wrong but I doubt it. He's spending most of his money in CA.
So, he's unlikely to have much impact in Dem primary, unless he weakens the eventual candidate, he might have an impact in the GOP primary. Perhaps, convincing a few reps not to vote in the election by making Trump look weak or just make clear what a ****** republican he actually is.

So, short version, I think the only impact Bloomberg will actually have is to weaken the eventual candidate of the party he's running in by making them look bad or weak as a candidate. I'd rather that be the GOP. As I have said elsewhere, I think the differences are all marginal but on the chance he will have an impact, I'd prefer he were running as a Rep right now.

So, why should he run as Dem?

I'm not sure he should run as a Dem.

The way I see it, a primary fight can sap a frontrunner's momentum, and discourage voters from turning out in the general. That's the situation the Democrats are in right now - a multi-way primary fight.

By contributing to this conflict, especially by having enough money to keep contributing to the bitter end (instead of dropping out early), Bloomberg can do a lot of damage to the Dems.

I'm not sure he could contribute to the same kind of conflict, if he ran as a Republican. Probably the only reason for him to run as a Republican would be that it means one less spoiler in the Democratic contest.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I will remain deeply skeptical of a Bloomberg nomination until I get my cut of the campaign money.

 

[ahhell]

I'm not sure he could contribute to the same kind of conflict, if he ran as a Republican. Probably the only reason for him to run as a Republican would be that it means one less spoiler in the Democratic contest.

This is basically what I'm saying. There's no upside for what ever party he runs in, so if he doesn't want Trump to win, he should run in the GOP race. He may not actually hurt Trump, but there's a chance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For all this talk about "Bernie or Bust" folks and "vote blue no matter who", Bloomberg is the one candidate I see with the most potential for fracturing the party and handing Trump another win.

It's no secret that the most strident Bernie supporters don't have warm feelings for centrists like Pete or Klobuchar, but that doesn't even compare to the utter contempt that the left wing of the party has for Bloomberg, the plutocrat candidate. Bernie is popular because he refuses to take big money donations and relies on the support of the common people. Bloomberg is the polar opposite, a billionaire using his own wealth to buy his way into the race. Bloomberg, more so than any other candidate, is a repudiation of the left wing's core values.

For all the panic mongering about disloyal Bernie supporters not voting blue, I see Bloomberg as the most likely candidate to actually make it come true. Replacing a kleptocrat multi-millionaire with a plutocratic billionaire may not be sufficient motivation for left-wingers to turn out in high numbers.

Hopefully the Bernie Bros that are that stupid are a tiny fringe.

If Bloomberg wins the nomination, his campaign so far, is the one that has the best chance of winning against Trump. Not just the fact he can throw a billion dollars down, but he knows what he's doing, something you can't say for most Democratic candidates. I wish Steyer had the political smarts Bloomberg has. If he did, we'd have a Progressive candidate that would almost certainly win against Trump.

Bloomberg's ads are effective. That's why he has shot up in the polls without eating hotdogs in Iowa.

Trump cannot intimidate Bloomberg. Bloomberg, OTOH, can make and is making Trump look like the jerk that he is.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I do hope Bloomberg has a plan to placate the Bernie Bros.

Maybe a Warren VP plus a commitment to stay a one-term President?

 

[carlitos]

I don't know whether it's a feature or a bug, but the fake fake Bloomberg memes and the real fake Bloomberg memes are hard to distinguish.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's so ironic that Trump went to such stupidity to neutralize Biden when really, all he had to do was publicize a couple of Hunter's jobs to make Biden look bad. Probably Trump's obsession with proving the Russian interference didn't happen (because Trump is obsessed with pretending he won the election without the Russians) led him to take such a stupid action.

Trump acting on his conspiracy theories is dangerous. In this case it was dangerous to him instead of to anyone else. Maybe if he wasn't bent on proving the nonsense that it was Ukraine that interfered and they did so to help Clinton, not him, someone could have convinced Trump he didn't need his 'perfect' call and what went with it. But it appears Trump was manipulated by Putin to pursue the Ukraine CT.