Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bloomberg-bankrolls-a-social-media-army-to-push-message-11582127768

by Bostonian • 6 years ago

213 440 6 years ago

wsj.com

Bostonian• 6 years ago

Excerpt at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3817721/posts .

Fjolsvith• 6 years ago

If he was Russian, this would be so uncool.

nkrisc• 6 years ago

If he was Russian, he wouldn't be running for president.

tyfon2• 6 years ago

I don't even.. wow..

Talk about buying the election.

Are anyone going to be fooled by this?

Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

user00012-ab• 6 years ago

Yes, 90% of the population is fooled by this.

oth001• 6 years ago

Is this based on facts or just your opinion? I'm willing to bet 90% of the population isn't fooled by it.

minimaxir• 6 years ago

Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

This in particular is an active area of development. Instagram initially said no, but then they changed it to yes.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/14/instagram-ads-bloomberg-me...

kop316• 6 years ago

It seems to be a similar play from 2016 with Correct the Record and worked then:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-troll...

gdubs• 6 years ago

Real Clear Politics Average currently has Bloomberg nearly tied for second place. Extrapolate what you wish from that, but something is working.

leftyted4• 6 years ago

Was Hillary Clinton "buying the election" when she outspent Donald Trump roughly 2:1?

Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike?

My vote isn't for sale and I assume that's true for other Americans. If I thought otherwise, I'd have a hard time convincing myself that democracies can work.

ehmish• 6 years ago

I'd say yes to both, but I'm not from the US so I have no horse in this race

6510• 6 years ago

It doesn't work like that. The big spenders drown out any alternative and they offer only a different interface for pretty much the same back end.

Since the US green party had 200-300 views per youtube video for them out of a million voters about 1 or 2 are not fooled. With candidates further "down" the list we all are fooled. I read maybe half the program for 1% of the alt-candidates. Definitely fooled I was.

rtkwe2• 6 years ago

A big difference is Bloomberg currently is 100% self funding his campaign while the '16 Hillary campaign had a lot of money yes but it came from donors supporting her. Bloomberg is self funding and is only where he is because of the massive amount of money he's throwing around from his own pocket.

Also it's not about explicitly buying votes but there's a lot of lower information voters out there who currently are principally hearing from Bloomberg because he's spending lots of money in later states where the more traditionally funded campaigns haven't because they're on lower cash reserves.

dontdoitpls• 6 years ago

We are seeing both parties run Populist demagogues.

Yes people are getting fooled real bad.

The decline of democracy is here.

morelisp3• 6 years ago

The democratic party is not yet running anyone; the two major party members running are Biden and Klobuchar who are neither populist nor demagogues; it's unlikely Bloomberg is the preferred choice of anyone there; Bloomberg is not populist (and I would also argue against demagogue); and Sanders, who might reasonably be called populist (but also not a demagogue) is also far from the DNC's preferred choice, maybe even below Bloomberg.

But sure, "both."

blowski• 6 years ago

Hasn’t this been going on for years? People made the same complaints about spending on TV adverts. Is it substantively worse in this election, or just spending a bit more on a different type of media? I don’t know, genuine question from a Brit.

paulgb• 6 years ago

Part of the problem is that it's a self-funded campaign. It's one thing when a campaign raises a bunch of money from donors and does an ad blitz, because at least it in theory represents real people (with contribution caps) who donated. When it's a billionaire self-funding, that's not the case. (PACs are also problematic, because they side-step the contribution caps)

wombat-man• 6 years ago

Kinda feels like anything goes at this point. You just gotta win :-|

duxup4• 6 years ago

Are anyone going to be fooled by this?

I think that is a lot harder to know and an eternal debate I have.

Yeah lots of media is buying a lot of attention...in the end someone chooses to vote for that person, or not, or stay home.

I strongly worry about the influence / advantage of such money, but folks still pick them and provided they're not illegally ... imprisoning candidates (extreme example of course)... it's still an election.

I don't know how to tell how much these things really change people's minds or if they really do just get extra attention and folks pick the person they want.

mrgreenfur• 6 years ago

It is super effective. I was in FL last weekend and the tv stations were flooded with ads; the positive tone seeps into your brain whether you like it or not.

werber2• 6 years ago

Are they requiring them to #ad the posts?

drenvuk• 6 years ago

This is a really good question and I'd like to see some fines dished out if they're not.

gjs278• 6 years ago

I wouldn’t. there’s no reason anyone should have to disclose if something is an ad.

claudeganon2• 6 years ago

If Bloomberg succeeds in buying the election, we will never have another president who isn’t a billionaire again. This is a far greater, long term threat to American democracy than anything posed by the Trump administration’s lawlessness.

khc• 6 years ago

Donald Trump spent less money on the election than Hillary Clinton maybe a counter example that people don't like

eej718• 6 years ago

I think that this is true, though I have no numbers to back it up.

He appeared to run a cost effective campaign. The endless free coverage provided by pundits and commentators who continuously mocked was transformed (by him) into a strength. He also made full use of social media to reach as many people as he could. I'd be hard pressed to name another candidate who so effectively used twitter.

The slogan and the hats too. Make fun of him all you want - but it was an effective and cheap marketing campaign. More importantly - its a message that resonated with a lot of people.

That's how you win elections.

leftyted4• 6 years ago

Yes, she outspent him 2:1: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

csours• 6 years ago

I'm sure the electoral college will protect us.

turk73• 6 years ago

Luckily, we're not a democracy!

malandrew5• 6 years ago

While it's not very substantive, this observation is correct so while it may be valid to downvote, it isn't valid to flag. The US is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic with an electoral college. The checks afforded by this system make it much harder than just manipulating a mob (which is another way to describe a democracy).

empath754• 6 years ago

I agree with the former, but not the latter.

claudeganon2• 6 years ago

I’d be interested to know why not the latter.

coolswan• 6 years ago

Let's say he wins. Execution of spending billions to win an election is actually very hard. When you look at Bloomberg's tactics, he's been playing the game for a very, very long time. He is on another level from your other billionaires. Everyone is making it seem like you can just be rich and clone tactics or something and boom, election yours.

300bps• 6 years ago

Archive of full story:

http://archive.is/WuPf8

sigmaprimus• 6 years ago

I'm looking forward to the debate tonite, hopefully Bloomberg will get to show everyone what kind of candidate he really is.

I still think his entire campaign is just a twisted way to get around campaign contribution limits and possibly a bulwark to keep the wacko socialist candidates from winning the nomination.

Hopefully he proves me wrong and is a real candidate that will be able to stand toe to toe with President Trump and we will see a good old fashioned dust up between the two of them this summer!!

inferiorhuman• 6 years ago

Were you paid to post that?

octonion2• 6 years ago

Improving society is "wacko"?

rudedogg• 6 years ago

I don't think the OP meant it in the way you think. My guess is they're speaking of the riskiness of Bernie winning the nomination, where as someone more centrist seems like a safer bet.

But who knows, the experts said Hillary would win too.

Edit: Nevermind, the OP meant what you thought :D

cvwright• 6 years ago

Love them or hate them, the one nice thing about Bloomberg and Trump is that, finally the billionaires are stepping out of the shadows. Instead of just bankrolling some frontman who looks good for the cameras, they are running as candidates themselves now.

Back in 2015 or 2016, The Atlantic had a great article that highlighted the billionaire donors behind each of the (traditional) Republican candidates in the presidential primary. It wasn't hard to see how the candidate's platform aligned with the donor's agenda in each case.

If some billionaire is going to be driving a political campaign, I'd much rather they were upfront about the whole thing and put their own name on it.

notaharvardmba• 6 years ago

And perhaps in this case, rather than some adjunct media agency (i.e. Fox News), the candidate has his own networks already...

dannykwells• 6 years ago

Clearly these tactics are despicable...and they work. Bloomberg is just demonstrating that he's the only one who really learned from Trump how to win in the modern era. Trump, of course, had Russian trolls posting rather than these folks...but potato/potaato.

And he's right - he went from nothing to third place (in national polls) solely through (mostly internet) ad spend.

What I don't understand is why every candidate isn't taking a similar approach. These guys are showing it's not about events, likeability, policies, history, etc. It's just about mass manipulation enabled by the internet.

empath754• 6 years ago

Nobody else has that kind of money. He's spent, last I read, $250 million dollars _already_.

ericflo• 6 years ago

They don't have the money to do that, in part because Bloomberg and Steyer are buying up all the inventory and driving up prices in the marketplace.

A4ET8a8uTh011• 6 years ago

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I am ok with Bloomberg spending some of his money. Granted, 300MM to him like approximately $20 to me, but still..

Do not misunderstand me. His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly. That said, I am perfectly fine with him finally spending at least some of his vast fortune instead of hoarding it like a dragon.

Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate.

BitwiseFool• 6 years ago

At the very least, a billionaire is cashing out a decent chunk of his assets and the money is going to other people. I personally think he's wasting his money, but I guess it's helping the economy?

pb78• 6 years ago

Surprised to see such naive takes on HN. Wealthy people don’t “hoard wealth like a dragon”. It’s invested in companies that translate to products, services, and jobs.

chrisco2552• 6 years ago

This is generally true. Most billionaires are there because of their stock ownership in large corporations. And if they were to cash out their stock they'd lose control of their enterprises.

A4ET8a8uTh011• 6 years ago

Companies are assets and as such they are still part of his wealth. It is not like I said he sleeps on gold coins in a vault.

No need to get literal.

malandrew5• 6 years ago

It's actually shocking and sad how widely held this belief is.

throwlaplace• 6 years ago

but those companies themselves hoard money so what's the difference?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/28/apple-q1-2019-cash-hoard-her...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/microsoft-apple-and-alphabet...

edit: why did i get downvoted?

Jeema101• 6 years ago

I hate to tell you this, but all money that exists in the money supply is invested in products, services, and jobs - unless it's stuffed in a mattress somewhere.

Wealthy people do 'hoard wealth like a dragon', by definition - otherwise they would not be wealthy.

rc_kas• 6 years ago

uhm. no. you are litterally saying naive things while calling others naive. crazy.

chrisco2552• 6 years ago

I don't think it's going to work. Money may be a guaranteed way to get yourself in "the top tier" in polling but when it comes to voting, I don't think that pans out. Money is a factor but it's not the only factor. Ross Perot spent I don't know how many millions and never got more than 10% of the vote. Clinton outspent Trump in 2016. If people don't get excited for a candidate and connect with them its just not going to translate to votes.

jascii2• 6 years ago

Clinton outspent Trump in 2016.

Do we have any any hard numbers how much was spend by various nation-states to benefit the Trump campaign?

To be fair, there are so many loopholes in campaign finance laws that it is hard to get accurate numbers of spending, beyond what is self-reported, for any candidate.

refurb6• 6 years ago

Agreed. People put way to much faith on dollars = votes.

Sure they benefit from spreading their message much wider, but it doesn’t mean people will vote for him.

X6S1x6Okd1st• 6 years ago

Clinton got more votes than trump as well, not the best example

danans2• 6 years ago

Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate.

What about the votes of the people you influenced in his direction? If just 2 other people turn to him as a result, your vote against him has been effectively negated. Perhaps the $2500 means more to you than the vote against Bloomberg? If so, that's fair. A lot of people could use that kind of money, and I don't blame them for taking it. Ironically, that speaks directly to the imbalance of political power caused by the existence of massively wealthy individuals like him.

But assuming you are OK with promoting a candidate in exchange for $, why not take money from a candidate you believe in, rather than one you plan to vote against? Is it because (just guessing) he's paying more? In which case, it seems a lot like he's just buying the primary.

A4ET8a8uTh011• 6 years ago

I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest. I do not subscribe to the 'they are basically children, we have to protect them'.

To the candidate I believe in I give my donation. For someone I believe, I will spread their message for free. Him? He has to pay.

aldoushuxley001• 6 years ago

"Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate."

You mean, you'll pocket that $2500, then vote for him for another promised $2500, because your vote is for sale - that much is certain.

pmoriarty2• 6 years ago

"His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly."

How about subvertive of the democratic process?

A4ET8a8uTh011• 6 years ago

It is only subvertive if people let it be so. But if his spending is subvertive then ALL like spending is subvertive. He is just more upfront about it.

I do think you have a valid argument here assuming the process was not already subverted.

standardUser• 6 years ago

It's actually perfectly in line with our democratic process. It's not subverting it, it's working exactly as designed. Spending a personal fortune is well within the rules. We should be criticizing the design, not the people taking advantage of the design.

In other words, hate the game not the player.

jacob0195• 6 years ago

I agree. There is no way a guy like Trump could have won without being independently wealthy. Will Trump spend one moment reflecting on the moral way to spend his enormous reelection campaign budget?

goatinaboat• 6 years ago

There is no way a guy like Trump could have won without being independently wealthy.

Are you sure about that? Trump raises massive donations at every rally.

anthm198812• 6 years ago

What he's doing is trying to buy democracy. It's monstrous, not merely annoying. Not even Trump had the gall to try and do something like this.

refurb6• 6 years ago

“Hoarding it like a dragon”?

You mean investing it in his company?

deeblering4• 6 years ago

Unseemly is not a strong enough word. An effort to knowingly pay off human shills to covertly interfere with an election outcome is shameful, completely unethical and arguably illegal.

Being passive about issues like this (let alone turning a blind eye and personally profiting from them...) gets into a scenario where there is no less obnoxious candidate to vote for.

A4ET8a8uTh011• 6 years ago

I disagree on all counts. It may not be strong enough, but it is literally his money. He can burn it all in flames and you would have zero to say about it ( unless maybe ypu were his neigbor and smoke was too bad ).

And how is that covert? We are all talking about it. People seem to freak out, because it appears to be working, which is interesting.

Lastly, how am I passive? I said I would take his money if offerred. I placed myself right on the fence..

As for lack of candidates, I do not think we are at culling stage yet.

m0zg• 6 years ago

He's just protecting his fortune against Bernie. Spend a billion, keep the remaining 39. Good deal. He will lose even if he does get nominated, and he's OK with that. This is a page directly from Trump's playbook: Trump routinely puts himself into situations where there are several ways for him to win and no way to really lose.

slumdev2• 6 years ago

I don't like this idea of buying elections. But at the very least, I'm happy to see the Democratic machine upside-down, with all of the designated incumbent royalty falling behind the outsiders.

jacob0195• 6 years ago

I appreciate the sentiment, but for those of us who have been negatively impacted by the policies of the current administration, it is worrying that a candidate with broad appeal has failed to materialize at this point.

slumdev2• 6 years ago

You've got one, but the machine keeps sabotaging him.

I don't think there are ten Democrats who oppose what Bernie Sanders stands for.

But there are millions of Democrats who oppose what they think he stands for.

danenania2• 6 years ago

Based on approval polls, Bernie Sanders is one of the best-liked politicians in America. He has often literally been number 1 in these polls. So I think he does have broad appeal, just not to rich and influential people (who make up a small minority, despite their outsized ability to have their voices heard).

davexunit2• 6 years ago

The candidate with broad appeal is Bernie Sanders.

rdtsc• 6 years ago

Interesting. Now that the cat is out of the bag any mention about him from any acquaintance is just going to make me think they got a check from Mike and make me dislike him more each time.

Does buying support like this work? "Hey family, Mike Bloomberg is awesome, we should all vote for him". That just feels so artificial and fake, but maybe if the phrase gets repeated enough people start believing it...

Outvote also allows users to look up whether their friends have voted in past elections by matching their contact lists against public data.

That's a good way to lose family and friends. "I see you haven't voted, if you want to stay friends and be invited out, better vote or donate to Mike's campaign".

it is important to be transparent about paid commercial promotions, but he views the ethics of political activism as less clear. ... “it took decades for TV and radio to figure out what disclosure for ads should be.”

So promoters don't have to put disclaimers in their messages. Does that open the door for his opponents to pretend to be Bloomberg's supporters but say ridiculous stuff to make people dislike him.

jacob0195• 6 years ago

"Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth." -Joseph Goebbels, Nazi

hbosch2• 6 years ago

Does buying support like this work?

Definitely. When a voter is in the booth, and has to make their decision for once and for all, name recognition and the opinion of your community matters a ton. Further, the type of social media content that is being produced is painting him as sort of a benevolent, rich, goofy guy. It's intentionally anti-establishment, but not in the radical way or the thoughtful way... it's a safe type of rebellion and that is endearing to a massive amount of people.

Does that open the door for his opponents to pretend to be Bloomberg's supporters but say ridiculous stuff to make people dislike him.

This has happened for a while and will continue to happen, although this kind of stuff is mainly isolated to niche Twitter... as we run up to election time, I think you will see more of this Clickhole/Onion type posting of anti-support-support.

grumple2• 6 years ago

So he's hiring a bunch of barely-over minimum wage workers to spread his message... and? What do you think the other politicians are doing with the millions they raise? This isn't a story.

morelisp3• 6 years ago

Mostly other politicians are running ads and campaign offices as politicians have done for decades - maybe with a social media manager or two per major office.

Bloomberg is doing that, also at a level of intensity not really seen before, but then also managing a uniquely expensive social media campaign.

Clinton's total campaign was something like $600e6. Bloomberg has already spent half of that, within the span of three state primaries. I would not be surprised if he spends at least that on the primary, and if he somehow gets the nomination, a billion minimum for the entire campaign.

It's unreal.

Stranger43• 6 years ago

Bloomberg 2020 campaign is really weird, not only is he not pretending to have an grassroots campaign so far he haven't even been on the ballot at a primary.

ineedasername2• 6 years ago

It's only barely over minimum wage if it takes you a full-time job's worth of time to do it. This seems like the type of thing you could do in a little bit of spare time.

As for why it's a story: Well, there's was (and still is) a bit of controversy over the role that technology, specifically social media, played in the the 2016 election. What Bloomberg is doing fits right into that theme. It also raises questions about what is advertisement, and what is individual "speech", because the former generally has to be identified as such in the context of a political campaign. Posting a status update on Facebook isn't by definition an ad, posting such an update in support of a political candidate doesn't have to be either... but if you're making those posts and you also happen to be getting paid by the campaign? Does each update and DM need to say, "This tweet was paid for by 2020 Bloomberg for President"? Does it need to have a link to Bloomberg stating, "I'm Michael Bloomberg, and I approve of this ad."? Logistically how would he even do such a thing for each and every paid social media interaction?

In short, it's a story because it sits are the nexus of technology, politics, and general societal discourse.

dang• 6 years ago

The story is that the method is unorthodox. At least the article uses that word.

_jal• 6 years ago

This is the US, pols have been hiring fake enthusiasm forever. What is new is that they don't appear to care about getting caught anymore.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/crowd-h...

grumple2• 6 years ago

Unorthodox compared to what, the pre-internet age? I question the factual validity of that; I doubt there's a campaign in the last decade that hasn't paid people to support the campaign on social media.

eplanit• 6 years ago

He'll be on the debate stage tonight as a legitimized candidate -- having not participated in the competitive process at all, and without a single donor (doesn't need 'em), and levering his billions to flood media.

It's a rather disgusting story, actually.

brighton362• 6 years ago

Might makes right.

duxup4• 6 years ago

Is there a right process to go through to run?

I'm not convinced the typical process as far as there being two viable parties and running through the wringer of their processes, is something that is particularly great at producing good candidates, or that someone bypassing that legally is a bad thing.

jr46tjdr• 6 years ago

It's fairly par for the course though, The Democrats are a party with a strong population of millionaires and billionaires just like their opponents.

AndrewUnmuted2• 6 years ago

You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kind of attack.

The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal frameworks established by folks like him.

Sure, there's the huge personality flaws that Bloomberg displays by taking this strategy, but those don't seem to be of major concern to most American voters. Our current president is a daily salient reminder of this fact.

If we want to focus on Bloomberg's personality, why not start with all the horrific policies he enacted as mayor? There are far more visible character flaws in those decisions than this decision to buy his way towards the Democratic party.

If you supported his policies, after all, you'd have no problem with this strategy being undertaken - right?

crazypyro• 6 years ago

Isn't him being on the debate stage evidence he is actively participating in the so called "competitive process"?

This seems like a rather weak point of contention...

leftyted4• 6 years ago

The "competitive process" is getting people to say they'll vote for you in polls. So he has been participating in that process. Bloomberg -- rightly or wrongly -- has a broad appeal.

travisoneill1• 6 years ago

Doesn't polling above 10% make him a legitimate candidate?

beepboopbeep2• 6 years ago

this is naive. The guy self funded. He's competing plenty, just not the classic way. No one is forcing anyone to support the guy. People are considering his points and saying "Ya, I support this guy". Best way to actually get that support down is to expose him to the public. You also risk him being a great debater, so it is what it is.

It sucks, but welcome to politics.

jariel• 6 years ago

True, but the 'story' is that he didn't 'raise' this money, it's his own. Meaning it has pretty big implications for campaign finance.

The precedent for having consecutive 'billionaires' as president is a little troubling. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with billionaires, but it sets the bar oddly high for a democratic republic.

kennywinker5• 6 years ago

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with billionaires

Debatable. Find me a billionaire who didn't get where they are through exploitive labour practices, monopolistic consolidation, political manipulation, massive environmental damage, or inheriting wealth earned in one or more of those ways. A world where billionaires can exists seems like a perversion of the ideals of "healthy" capitalism to me.

rpastuszak• 6 years ago

True, but we need more people aware of that + less complacency. The fact that something became a norm doesn't mean that it's good.

zone411• 6 years ago

Let's stay accurate, shall we? $2500/month at 20-30 hours per week is $19-$29/hour.

oarabbus_3• 6 years ago

What qualifies as a story for you? This is unprecedented in the history of US politics.

dorkinspace• 6 years ago

Is it unprecedented? HRC did the exact same thing.

A4ET8a8uTh011• 6 years ago

It seems a lot of people seem upset is because it works ( as in, polls reflect some movement ).

That said, Biden was up in polls initially based on name recognition alone.

brightstep6• 6 years ago

Big difference between money sourced from individual donors and money sourced from an individual. In the former case, money represents the collective will of a group of supporters. In the latter, it represents the will of one rich guy. That's not democracy.

doggydogs94• 6 years ago

Do some searches on Google. You will discover that Bloomberg is paying employees much more than other presidential candidates.

sjg0072• 6 years ago

A populist President can be mitigated by Congress if they choose to act and also take back some of the executive powers they gave the President.

jaywalk3• 6 years ago

Congress doesn't give the President anything except money. Executive powers come from the Constitution, not Congress.

To put it simply: the President does not serve at the pleasure of Congress.

sjg0072• 6 years ago

Yes the executive powers in the Constitution are obviously not governed by Congress but Congress has indeed delegated some their responsibilities to the President. These, known as the emergency powers, are what I am referring to.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/preside...

Der_Einzige• 6 years ago

have you ever heard of the "Take care" clause?

pjlegato3• 6 years ago

Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president.

Running for president is very expensive. All other candidates are also spending a lot of money -- but they're spending a lot of _other people's money_, to whom they are now beholden. What do those other people expect to get in return for their financial support? Surely they don't just give away millions of hard earned dollars to install someone in the most powerful office in the world out of faith in democracy. Donors and their groups -- especially the large and important ones -- are almost always aligned with explicit policy (and often persoanl) quid pro quo expectations, should the candidate win the election.

Bloomberg, by contrast, is spending his own money. He's not beholden to anyone's interests or greed or kickbacks or special interests. Whether you like or dislike his policy proposals, surely this point, at least, is better than a candidate with a wealthy donor network of obscure motives pulling the strings behind the scenes.

vanusa2• 6 years ago

Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president.

No - it's not that he's spending his own money. But rather, how he's spending it.

And they're not "upset". They're calmly pointing out the obvious: that this kind of attempted influence buying is profoundly dystopian and antidemocratic.

pjlegato3• 6 years ago

All of the other candidates are also doing that; there's nothing special about how Bloomberg is spending his money. The others are doing the same, but with other people's money -- people who will now expect to wield influence behind the scenes. Is that not worse?

akhilcacharya3• 6 years ago

profoundly dystopian and antidemocratic

I don't think it's antidemocratic. Bernie Sanders is doing just fine with a fraction of the ad spending. Ultimately, nobody is being forced to vote for him. Super Tuesday will be the first test, and it's very possible that Bernie will sweep all of the big states himself.

savingGrace• 6 years ago

What are you going to do with your $2500? ;)

hippich2• 6 years ago

For what it is worth, I got text asking for donation to Bloomberg's campaign. So I would not expect Bloomberg not taking money from large donors.

pjlegato3• 6 years ago

Bloomberg doesn't need money. He solicits donations because the act of donating money causes the donator to feel personally invested in the campaign. They will be more likely to take steps to influence their friends and family to vote for Bloomberg, and more likely to actually bother to vote themselves, than someone who hasn't.

This is the same reason governments sell war bonds -- they don't actually need the $100. It rather serves to make ordinary people feel they are contributing something to the cause.

dbqpdb• 6 years ago

I dispute this logic entirely. Yes, he is not beholden to external special interests. But he is worth some 60 billion dollars, owns his own media company, is the single largest donator to the democaratic party(he owns Pelosi's super pac), and is deeply enmeshed in wall street. The guy literally is a special interest himself. You should all be terrified of a potential Bloomberg presidency. Everything coming out about him recently paints a picture of somebody with a lot of the exact same negative personality traits as Trump, but who is deeply competent. This is horrifying.

jaybeeayyy• 6 years ago

So instead of people buying politicians with large donations, he can buy people with large donations....like he's done with all those mayors.

It's worse because it's self-serving. It's unprecedented because he's outspent every candidate (I believe in the history of the US) and it's all his own money. He can buy anyone at this point...I'd rather have a politician pulled in several directions than one that just does whatever he pleases because he can buy influence and influencers

jvagner• 6 years ago

is better than a candidate with a wealthy donor network of obscure motives pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Surely this was said of the current occupant... never quite as clean as that, it would seem.

pdeuchler2• 6 years ago

He's not beholden to anyone's interests or greed or kickbacks or special interests.

What a laughable statement. Of course he is, he's beholden to his own interests as a billionaire. Bloomberg is special interests personified. How is it possibly a good thing that any single person in our country can elect themselves via sheer wealth?

Also incredible that you phrase being beholden to many people's interests as a bad thing. Of course there is corruption by another name when candidates take money from Super PACs (Buttigieg/Biden), but isn't it a good thing that, for example, Sanders is now beholden to the interests of his over 2 million donors? Almost like he's beholden to the interest of his constituents, as an elected representative...

vgaldikas• 6 years ago

So you think he is spending hundreds of millions out of goodness of his heart? Just so he would get the chance to help average citizen?

allovernow• 6 years ago

Shilling on social media appeared overnight. Literally a switch was turned on and suddenly hundreds of "totally organic" posts about Bloomberg are popping up everywhere mimicking local forum/board subcultures. Many of the people seem to be posting somewhat ironically, though it seems his campaign has attempted to embrace the same style of "no press is bad press" attention that undoubtedly contributed to Trump's election.

It's pretty gross to watch someone literally buy an election. I hope he fails. But there's a good chance he'll get far, because though he is running as a Democrat, many of his past statements regarding women, minorities, and stop and frisk appeal to the non-PC Republican sentiment that worked in the last election. And you can count on the fact that the average person won't understand that none of this buzz is organic.

at_a_remove• 6 years ago

The results are even clunkier than when Correct The Record began. Those were obvious and a little insulting. So far, Bloomberg's shills are staggering about like 1950s robots, emitting electoral noises on some kind of shrill, buzzing loop.

whatshisface2• 6 years ago

mimicking local forum/board subcultures

I wonder what the HN ones look like, maybe like this:

"I disagree with the article and also with the parent comment..."

cabaalis• 6 years ago

I see this also for Bernie, in odd locations. I've been playing Warcraft 3 reforged lately, and the general chat that shows up on the main menu in-game has been all kinds of people extolling the values of Bernie Sanders.

Of course, it could be grassroots. I just doubt it.

nacho2sweet• 6 years ago

I am paid to shill in warcraft 3 general chat. I can vouch for this.

neonate• 6 years ago

https://archive.md/MCRbf

anonAndOn2• 6 years ago

What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires. A populist carnival barker vs. a man who built his own personal tech/media empire.

I'd bet dollars to donuts Mike's got a tech team in place right now that is running rings around the DNC's haphazard patronage party.

akhilcacharya3• 6 years ago

They're building it, and seem to be recruiting heavily from Google/Facebook/Amazon etc.

From a political science and historical perspective it's absolutely astonishing. Mike has a lot of baggage but a lot of cash and talent behind him, including ~100 pretty excellent TV and online ads.

mAEStro-paNDa3• 6 years ago

What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires.

Sounds more like a lack of choice.

nostromo3• 6 years ago

https://i.imgur.com/w9vZ8lz.png

We keep pulling from the same small pool of rich, connected household names and expect different results.

boourns311• 6 years ago

Sorry, who's the billionaire other than Bloomberg?

tyfon2• 6 years ago

Tom Steyer (Hedge fund manager from NY)

anonAndOn2• 6 years ago

Emoluments Clause be damned, he's cashing in more than just a book deal after this. Private dinners with the POTUS at Mar A Lago don't come cheap.

takeda4• 6 years ago

Also a supposed Democrat that run as a Republican and Republican that's running as a Democrat.

mrguyorama5• 6 years ago

supposed Democrat

Trump was a registered democrat.

nostromo3• 6 years ago

Bernie -- an Independent running as a Democrat.

Trump - a former Democrat, now the Republican president

Bloomberg - a former Republican, turned Independent, now running as a Democrat

Parties used to have the power, but now it seems like popular politicians are picking the party they think provides them with the easiest path to power, realigning their policy views accordingly.

ErikAugust• 6 years ago

And 2016 was also a NY-based choice. Combination of money and control of media narrative.

nappy-doo• 6 years ago

I have friends that work[ed] at Bloomberg. I doubt they're that good.

omegaworks5• 6 years ago

Most of us have until Super Tuesday (March 3rd) to choose literally any other option.

Look up your state to find the rules that apply to you:

https://voteforbernie.org/

huebomont4• 6 years ago

Weird definition of "choice."

graeme3• 6 years ago

Trump is highly unlikely to be a billionaire. The only source for this claim was Trump himself. He took on an alter ego and lied to Forbes to get on the Forbes list.

Other than Forbes, I know of no source that claimed Trump was a billionaire. I think it all goes back to the original lie.

Further, most of his charity scams have been strictly small time. Amounts ranging from $10,000 to a few hundred thousand. No billionaire needs to bother scamming figures so low. If you have, say, $5 billion in net worth and it grows at 5% per year, that’s $250 million per year.

$100,000 is strictly beneath the notice of someone with that much income. But it was not below Trump’s notice. Ergo, it seems unlikely he has the income. Again, the only source on his wealth was himself.

I should note, against my own argument, that Forbes presently thinks Trump is worth $4.4 billion. I could be wrong, but the charity behaviour seems so contrary to actually having wealth. We also know no banks other than Deutsche Bank would lend Trump money. If he truly has billions in assets not encumbered by debt....why? There seems little risk.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/05/08/why-we-...

nabla9• 6 years ago

Forbes and other magazines just sum up assets associated with wealthy individuals and don't do any real work to track debt or real owners.

In many properties with Trump's name on them Trump is minority owner with small stake and these companies have huge loans. Bank Trump’s Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-...

Actual net worth is very hard to estimate because he is hiding his financial status as much as possible. The fact that American banks don't do business with him anymore indicates that his financial situation is not good.

akira2501• 6 years ago

a man who built his own personal tech/media empire.

Well, him and the three other people with the skills to actually built it.. he just provided the seed capital and then put his name on it. Secunda, MacMillan and Zegar are all billionaires.

dukoid2• 6 years ago

Why doesn't he just buy Fox News?

akhilcacharya3• 6 years ago

...it's not for sale? Never really understood this line of attack.

dukoid2• 6 years ago

It was a serious question where I don't know the answer... Shares are publicly traded at NASDAQ. The Murdoch family seems to hold 39% (of the shares with voting power?) according to Wikipedia... Not sure how feasible it would be to buy enough of the rest if money wasn't an issue?

hacym• 6 years ago

I've watched enough of Succession to know that everything is for sale.

three_seagrass7• 6 years ago

It's certainly not doing well though. Disney specifically ditched it as part of the Fox takeover.

jdkee2• 6 years ago

Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?

takeda4• 6 years ago

Yeah it's really sad, Bloomberg essentially is Democratic version of Trump.

Loughla3• 6 years ago

Not really. He's the centrist/right leaning version of Trump.

brightstep6• 6 years ago

In some ways he's far more dangerous. He implemented a truly scary authoritarian police state during his term as mayor of New York City.

dagw• 6 years ago

In what way, other than both being old, white, rich and from New York.

Trump wanted to tack hard away from the center and to tear down the Republican establishment and rebuild it with a more populist vision. Bloomberg is running to stop the Democrats from tacking away from the center and to 'protect' the party from those threatening to tear it down and rebuild it with a more populist image.

Trump ran as an outsider populist, Bloomberg as an insider technocrat.

reroute12• 6 years ago

It's not, but hasn't money always played a big role in politics? It's hard to define where a wealthy persons legitimate advantage lies and when it becomes purchasing the presidency. I'm all for a meritocracy, but getting money out of politics doesn't seem like anything easily solved.

avmich• 6 years ago

It's not, but hasn't money always played an important role in politics?

I guess it's a rhetorical question. In other words, let me rephrase: why money has always played an important role in politics?

In 2016 Lawrence Lessig tried to attack this problem, with little success. In this election there seemingly is another candidate, somewhat more practical than Lessig, with somewhat stronger systematic approach than others, so we can hope for some progress.

brightstep6• 6 years ago

The amount of money Bloomberg can/is using to buy this election is unprecedented in a Presidential candidate. The simple definition for attempting to buy the presidency is "any money you control", including your bank account, your business, dark money groups, etc. Elections should be funded entirely by donations from individuals.

tropo• 6 years ago

The alternatives are worse. The choices:

1. purchase it with their own money

2. purchase it with money from bribes

3. blackmail party insiders for the nomination and support

Using their own money is the cleanest and most honest way to do things.

omegaworks5• 6 years ago

You're forgetting

4. Convince millions to give just a little bit of time or effort because you spent your entire political career fighting for working people.

Which, in my view, is even better.

brightstep6• 6 years ago

You're missing a key alternative here which is, you know, asking voters to donate

tryitnow• 6 years ago

Not really. So far the biggest fundraiser in the Democratic primary has been Bernie Sanders and he has raised most of his money from small money donors.

So it's absolutely possible to raise money without using one's own money or taking bribes.

And even if a candidate raises money from a 100 billionaires, that's better than one billionaire. The more people you raise money from the more likely it is that those people have conflicts with one another that can then balance one another out.

A single billionaire financing their own campaign is just too much centralized power for my tastes, even if I trust that billionaire and generally like his policies.

Power corrupts.

jdkee2• 6 years ago

4. Fund federal elections with federal dollars.

hooande• 6 years ago

in fairness, there are two billionaires running on one side and a near billionaire (trump) on the other side. at least one (Ross Perot) has run in the past.

having a lot of money makes it easier to run, but there's no guarantee of success

12xo4• 6 years ago

Healthy? No. But its as American as apple pie. Everything these days,in America is based on money.

The entire political process is based on money (fundraising determines whether you're even on the ballot or a debate or able to be on a ticket) and controlled by money as there is a direct correlation between media spend and campaign success.

The worst part is that the "media" is the one sector in our country that has the most to gain from chaos and they're the ones who for the most part, control the dialog and the direction and worse, the cost.

Frankly, I am more shocked by the fact that people dont understand that its all about money.

gremlinsinc3• 6 years ago

That's why we need public funding of elections... Bloomberg can spend a billion, and who benefits the most? MSNBC, CNN, Facebook, so of course when he's not paying they STILL prop him up because the longer he stays in the race the more $$ they collectively make, who cares if it destroys America in the process as long as there's a paycheck.

huonpine• 6 years ago

In the Podesta emails john ivory laments the fact that the dnc thought the real treat was citizens untied, but turned out the free press from trumps celebrity dwarfed that. This time dnc is banking that Bloomberg billions can outspend even that...

ColanR4• 6 years ago

What is healthy, is that an American spent his money how he liked, the American media is free enough to have reported on it, American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people.

He's not purchasing anything - as long as Americans care enough to be informed, he's blowing hot air that no one will believe.

gremlinsinc3• 6 years ago

Right the media is 'free' enough to report on it... Krystal Ball, Cenk, TYT, sure they HAVE talked about it, but the major netwroks like CNN and MSNBC? Not really, if they did he might not get so far, and then would stop literally throwing cash at them by buying ads. Public funding of elections needs to end, and Bloomberg is literally showing what's possible.

vojta_letal2• 6 years ago

is that an American spent his money how he liked

Caps on campaign spending are there for reasons. A campaign should contribute to meaningful public discourse. Nothing more.

the American media is free enough to have reported on it

Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Britain or Czech Republic - state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values.

American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people

Well, there are multiple studies in several countries which show the opposite. Quick google search yields one such https://thehill.com/homenews/media/392870-pew-study-finds-am...

torben-friis2• 6 years ago

American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid

I'm curious: How do you think that Americans can be well informed in a system that actively attempts to feed them disinformation by a series of interested parties that have down to a science how to switch public opinion and humungous budgets?

I'm not claiming that it's impossible for a single person to be well informed, mind you; I'm simply saying that it's pretty clear that the efforts to keep people misinformed are giant, becoming stronger by the day as technology advances and with no significant opposing force. I can't see how anyone can see that trend and think it's not going to have a harmful effect on society.

polly5• 6 years ago

Cause after the oligarch looses then Zuckerberg, Kushner and other sundry mindlessly ambitious people might rethink their future plans to run. At least for a few years.

jimbokun• 6 years ago

Ask the Supreme Court justices who decided money is speech and deserves the same protections under the Constitution.

0x8BADF00D• 6 years ago

It’s always been for sale, you’re just aware of it now.

ordinaryperson• 6 years ago

George Washington lost his first campaign to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1755, 271-40.

When he ran again 3 years later he gave away 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and two gallons of cider royal — "nearly enough for a half-gallon per voter." And guess what, he won.

Considering we wouldn't even declare independence until 18 years later, it's safe to say that buying influence in an election has been American since the beginning, and even before.

[1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12384/swilling-planters-...

uoaei3• 6 years ago

This comment carries the implication that because this practice is American, it's OK if we continue doing it. I heartily disagree and thinks it's abominable to consider something as consequential as this election in such stark, cynical terms.

baybal2• 6 years ago

On the other hand, the Rockefeller family had a very long record of spending enormous sums on elections, whether by running themselves, or through an own candidate, and loosing every single time.

It will be a good read for everybody deifying "a realpolitik grandmaster" Henry Kissinger how badly he failed in the role of Rockefeller's political adviser. His ineptitude in politics was borderline tragicomedic. This the best proof to me that a "professional politician" is really an oxymoron.

The rich are bad at politics more often than not, and their money can compensate for that only partially.

Georgie Washington was however a spectacular politician on his own, without a doubt.

deevolution• 6 years ago

Andrew yang offered Americans 1k/month... maybe he should have offered 1k/month in booze, opioids and football tickets instead

dennisgorelik• 6 years ago

Politics being strongly influenced by money is healthy, because the most successful people have the most money.

The more influence successful people have on politics - the better it is for the country overall.

Countries that try to manage themselves by poor majority - quickly deteriorate into chaos or into dictatorship.

ourmandave• 6 years ago

Let's see who is actually sworn first in before we start declaring the Presidency is for sale.

SamReidHughes• 6 years ago

That individuals can shake up the system, but only if they can convince voters to vote for them, is a sign of health in a democracy. The alternative is deeper two-party stagnation.

austhrow743• 6 years ago

People are still voting to choose him. He is making his case for why he should be president, people are deciding they like his more than others, so they vote for him.

NotSammyHagar• 6 years ago

It is not healthy.

SubiculumCode• 6 years ago

All I have to say to Bloomberg is:

Okay Bloomer.

zelias2• 6 years ago

I'd respect the hell out of Bloomberg if he came out and said "damn right I'm buying this election...because the rules are that messed up" followed by a comprehensive plan to forever get money out of our elections.

omegaworks5• 6 years ago

I respect the guy that's said that very thing since he started running. Bernie is proving that we can win without corporate PAC money and he has a plan to get dark money out of politics.

zelias2• 6 years ago

I'm with you there, no doubt, but lately I've wondered how effectively Bernie could accomplish this.

Only Nixon could go to China, as the saying goes.

EDIT: I don't mean this in terms of electability -- I think Bernie can beat Trump hands down. What I mean is accomplishing what he sets out to do in terms of policy implementation -- which, as the Obama years have shown us, is not as easy as it sounds.

burtonator• 6 years ago

Why would he want to change the rules? They've spent so long trying to bend them for their own advantage.

scollet• 6 years ago

I feel like I'm missing the sarcasm here.

three_seagrass7• 6 years ago

Bloomberg already is.

He's pointing to the impact his $400M political donations have made, like getting women elected, stopping homelessness, youth education, etc. whenever asked.

This $2,500/mo for influencers is a drop in the bucket.

ep1032• 6 years ago

There is a candidate saying the rules are messed up, but its not Bloomberg, its Sanders.

Bloomberg is the guy the rules were written to benefit. He doesn't want them changed.

That's why he chose to run against Sanders, when it appeared Sanders could win.

remmargorp64• 6 years ago

Exactly. Bernie is the only candidate I know of who is a fan of getting the big money out of politics and has been fighting on that platform for years:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-out-of-politics/

12xo4• 6 years ago

I wonder if the entire race could be won by offering an incentive of sorts. Say a $50 Amazon gift card for every (new) voter who sends a pic of their vote receipt or something... Granted its a lot of money, but so is gifting billions to the media conglomerates for more (useless) ads...

tomjakubowski2• 6 years ago

Secret ballots prevent that kind of attack. Everywhere I have voted in the US, at least, doesn't include ballot selections on the receipt.

zelly3• 6 years ago

I saw someone recording a video of themselves selecting the choices on the voting kiosk. No one is going to stop you from doing that, nor would it be practical to try.

ninkendo• 6 years ago

Who cares? Just set up kiosks and give gift cards to anyone that votes. Pick the key districts (i.e. where people are likely to vote D but have low turnout) and you could easily push the electoral college over the tipping point for a few billion.

zelly3• 6 years ago

It's entirely possible.

Make a publicly facing form on darknet to send in your vote receipt along with your full name, SSN, voter registration number, etc. (cross referenced against leaked databases) to prevent double dipping and spoofing. Send over $50 of Bitcoin (better yet Monero) on verification.

Literally no one can stop this.

brightstep6• 6 years ago

In many states it is illegal to share a photo of your ballot.

12xo4• 6 years ago

I am not even thinking it should be clandestine. You could literally set up kiosks outside of voting areas and as people come out, and they show you their ballet stub, you give them a gift card.

The volume of young people,minorities and poor who would vote for a little cash is enough to push the ballot towards the Democrat. Its not prejudice, just a fact that there are more people who lean left than right, but most of them do not vote.If they did, the entire landscape of Washington would change and in states like Kentucky it would shift the entire balance of power.

empath754• 6 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_money

Anon84• 6 years ago

Bloomberg is showing everyone how to beat Trump at his own game. Let's hope they learn in time.

ajoy• 6 years ago

This is the game that is being played : https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-202... (The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President). The article is a little biased, but shows the sophistication required to play.

To bring a contrarian pt of view: If you are a billionaire and you ask for donations, people might say, "Why are you asking us for money, why don't use your own?"

solinent2• 6 years ago

Paid shills tend to have a strange effect where they polarize people in the other direction than intended since their arguments are not always well founded and honest, and they will always suffer from some form of groupthink. It's a slingshot effect--at first people fall for the farce, but soon they realize they have been mislead. It could even spoil the election and get some to vote in the opposite direction.

I think it's also pretty easy to spot these days and we're armed much better to fight it at the platform-level.

I don't think this will end well for Bloomberg, he has a long way to climb, and his name is literally associated with big money. He may have already reached saturation, and this is a dying move.

elihu• 6 years ago

Paid shills tend to have a strange effect where they polarize people in the other direction than intended since their arguments are not always well founded and honest, and they will always suffer from some form of groupthink.

Another aspect of this is that when one encounters a positive comment about Bloomberg on the Internet, the default assumption for a lot of people is going to be that Bloomberg slipped them a twenty. Even honest supporters of Bloomberg are going to have their statements viewed with extreme skepticism.

I think it's also pretty easy to spot these days...

Is that really true? Some forms of astroturf are transparently obvious, but just because some of it is easy to spot doesn't mean it all is.

I don't think this will end well for Bloomberg...

Same here. I'll take him seriously as a candidate once he's defended his ideas and his record in an adversarial setting (such as tonight's debate) and has won some delegates.

harry83• 6 years ago

There's a lot of engagement on some issue or other, such as this one of how easy it is to spot paid shills and then while making a pretty reasonable point about it stating something very contentious as fact. Just like we see from Bernie and his total commitment to call communism by another name.

And that last bit is 1% of the interest and is tangentially related so it doesn't totally jar. Look out for it. You get the same ones repeated again and again like that. It may be totally organic too because Assange is a narcisist rapist who is lying about being afraid of being extradited to the USA so lots of people have said so. Keep repeating and it becomes fact undermines anyone with a different point of view. Full disclosure I am not an Assange supporter nor a Bloomberg or Bernie supporter.

Paid shills are actually really hard to spot. I strongly suspect most of what jars as paid shills aren't paid.

solinent2• 6 years ago

Yeah I think you have to stem the tide to avoiding the "unpaid" shills. I've even seen people who shill in one direction just to be accepted by a community so they can troll them.

I hypothesize you could detect this type of stuff using semantic analysis of text if you check word order and frequency (or go ML with fastText or w/e) you could get maybe 90% accuracy at determining whether someone isn't a shill. There needs to be an investigative process which humans undergo after this. Then some form of identification would be required before any sort of ban (ideally you tell them, this only stops the false positives from rejoining) can be lifted, just incase any local laws are broken.

The shills all have some source material, so they should be closer to it language-wise than those that they teach/brainwash.

But hey, I wish I was paid to shill against other shills and detect them, it would be an interesting job.

newshorts• 6 years ago

If Bloomberg get elected and successfully purchases the presidency, I’m moving my family out of the US. I will no long contribute to our collective GDP or pay taxes. I’ll vote with my feet if I can’t vote with my rights as an American citizen.

seemslegit2• 6 years ago

Which country gets that GDP in such a case ?

tsycho• 6 years ago

What if Trump wins?

onetti• 6 years ago

Donald Trump spent on his campaign almost half the money of Clinton's campaign, and he won the presidency despite having raised less than any major party presidential nominee since 2008 [0]. So, if your concern is a candidate "buying" an election, Trump would be the worst recent example one could use.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

i_am_nomad• 6 years ago

Don’t forget to pay your exit tax.

MuffinFlavored2• 6 years ago

Is this real?

seemslegit2• 6 years ago

He would probably never do that, but I wouldn't begrudge Sanders if in case of a contested convention and having amassed the most delegates he would go 'Your call, but if you throw this to Bloomberg you should plan on a scenario of him running against Trump and myself as Independent' of course Bloomberg could do that too and in fact might be counting on it. And then it will be a game of chicken with a 2nd Trump presidency as the cliff, or maybe they'll just give it to Klobuchar

Mountain_Skies2• 6 years ago

Jeb Bush spent $130 million to lose the Republican primary. Hillary Clinton spent probably an order of magnitude more to lose the general election. Both outspent Donald Trump just to lose to him in their respective races. Money isn't everything and Bloomberg is risking alienating voters with his ham fisted advertising. His ads on YouTube are non-skippable. He paid extra for that yet it's more likely to anger viewers than to get their votes. If his social media army is just as obnoxious in their campaigning for him, well, a fool and their money are soon parted.

athrowaway3z• 6 years ago

Yesterday it struck me that a quality i look for in a leader is integrity. E.g. their unwillingness to be bribed by wealth and luxury.

I think some Americans might be misinterpreting Trump's and Bloomberg's position. Their personal wealth made them jaded, not immune or uninterested in the idea.

animalnewbie3• 6 years ago

Here is what will happen : Bloomberg will be anointed the nominee. Trump will win again and the democratic party will blame russya to deflect blame.

Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

Related Stories