Bloomberg to Swamp Dems in $$$

[Elixir]

Bloomberg to fund sizable campaign effort through November even if he loses Democratic nomination

Well ain't that a fine kettle of fish! All those republitard bazillionaires are going to have to either dig into their own heavily secured pockets, or get Uncle Vlad's boys, MBS etc. to ante up even more than they already have.

I guess that if we're going to allow unlimited money in politics we may as well be totally disgusting about it...

 

[Jayjay]

Hope he spends some of his dough funding McConnell's and Graham's opponents in their respective districts, instead of just the presidential campaign.

 

[Elixir]

Hope he spends some of his dough funding McConnell's and Graham's opponents in their respective districts, instead of just the presidential campaign.

Agreed. Mikey is no dummy - if this is more than an empty gesture and a true sign that he will spend money to get rid of Cheato, then funding Amy McGrath's campaign and other key senate races should be a foregone conclusion. His Superbowl buy will probably reveal some things about the scope and intent of what he has in mind.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

"Even if" he loses? Doesn't that imply that there's someone planning to vote for the guy?

 

[ZiprHead]

I saw Rachel Maddow's segment about Bloomberg's spending. Seeing a lot of his commercials here in mid-Michigan. I haven't seen numbers but I've heard he's starting to move up the ranks because of those commercials.

 

[Trausti]

Best friends.

 

[blastula]

He's killing everyone now in spending.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That there's a lot of adds. And the polls are showing Bloomberg's and Steyer's adds are working to some degree. This is a great test of just how much of an election can money outright buy, especially since Bloomberg isn't even in any of the debates.

 

[Elixir]

Best friends.

That's terrible.



Degrees of separation are rarely more than 1 in political and mob circles.

 

[Patooka]

For once, the US is emulating Australia instead of the other way around. In our last Federal Election, we had a billionaire spend more on election advertising than both major parties combined. The upshot is a long hard look at campaign financing is happening so maybe that could happen for the US as well. However, it may seem equally likely that that ship has sailed for the States considering how much is spent on Presidential elections already.

 

[Ford]

Bloomberg to fund sizable campaign effort through November even if he loses Democratic nomination

Well ain't that a fine kettle of fish! All those republitard bazillionaires are going to have to either dig into their own heavily secured pockets, or get Uncle Vlad's boys, MBS etc. to ante up even more than they already have.

I guess that if we're going to allow unlimited money in politics we may as well be totally disgusting about it...

On some level, though, I'm okay with it.

I mean, Bloomberg is saying to Trump "you're a billionaire who doesn't need anyone else's money to get elected? That's cute. Let me get my checkbook."

And while it's noble for Sanders and Warren to refuse big money from big donors, the reality is (and has been for some time) that the GOP has no problem allowing money to flow freely into their coffers. Citizens United? Bloomberg can outspend the entire GOP and still have enough money left over to make Trump look like a pauper. Do we need to get big money out of politics? Absolutely. Yet until we have some sort of legal framework to do just that, having Bloomberg up the ante by a couple hundred million is a nice antidote to the Koch's and Murdoch's of the world.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I mean, Bloomberg is saying to Trump "you're a billionaire who doesn't need anyone else's money to get elected? That's cute. Let me get my checkbook."

The funny thing is how this is a Republican turned Democrat doing this to a Democrat turned Republican.

 

[Politesse]

The upshot is a long hard look at campaign financing is happening so maybe that could happen for the US as well.

We've been trending quite the other direction.

 

[Elixir]

Bloomberg to fund sizable campaign effort through November even if he loses Democratic nomination

Well ain't that a fine kettle of fish! All those republitard bazillionaires are going to have to either dig into their own heavily secured pockets, or get Uncle Vlad's boys, MBS etc. to ante up even more than they already have.

I guess that if we're going to allow unlimited money in politics we may as well be totally disgusting about it...

On some level, though, I'm okay with it.

I mean, Bloomberg is saying to Trump "you're a billionaire who doesn't need anyone else's money to get elected? That's cute. Let me get my checkbook."

And while it's noble for Sanders and Warren to refuse big money from big donors, the reality is (and has been for some time) that the GOP has no problem allowing money to flow freely into their coffers. Citizens United? Bloomberg can outspend the entire GOP and still have enough money left over to make Trump look like a pauper. Do we need to get big money out of politics? Absolutely. Yet until we have some sort of legal framework to do just that, having Bloomberg up the ante by a couple hundred million is a nice antidote to the Koch's and Murdoch's of the world.

I'm disappointed that Mikey is being such a piker about it. Promises $500m ... a drop in the bucket, when Pootey and the Saudi murderer guy can ante up a few billion without blinking. Mikey could set aside say, ten billion to provide for his own comfort (that's like ten million a month for the rest of his life expectancy and beyond - should suffice) and dump 40+ billion into getting rid of Trump. That might put some actual pressure on the Cheato Cabal.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Bloomberg to fund sizable campaign effort through November even if he loses Democratic nomination

Well ain't that a fine kettle of fish! All those republitard bazillionaires are going to have to either dig into their own heavily secured pockets, or get Uncle Vlad's boys, MBS etc. to ante up even more than they already have.

I guess that if we're going to allow unlimited money in politics we may as well be totally disgusting about it...

On some level, though, I'm okay with it.

I mean, Bloomberg is saying to Trump "you're a billionaire who doesn't need anyone else's money to get elected? That's cute. Let me get my checkbook."

And while it's noble for Sanders and Warren to refuse big money from big donors, the reality is (and has been for some time) that the GOP has no problem allowing money to flow freely into their coffers. Citizens United? Bloomberg can outspend the entire GOP and still have enough money left over to make Trump look like a pauper. Do we need to get big money out of politics? Absolutely. Yet until we have some sort of legal framework to do just that, having Bloomberg up the ante by a couple hundred million is a nice antidote to the Koch's and Murdoch's of the world.

In that there isn't a legal framework, for Sanders and Warren, I think their refusal to take money from big donors would be more accurately described, not as noble but as naive. This is why now is not the time for either one of them. With Trump's ascension to the presidency, the divisiveness within the electorate is at a point where a bridge is needed to bring a significant portion of us to the middle ground. The Trumpkins aren't going anywhere. Putting Warren or god forbid, Sanders in the White House will create fresh wounds. Trumpkins will be livid, perhaps even violent. Meanwhile President Sanders will be trying to push his Medicare for All through a congress that will laugh him off. To think anyone believes that ornery old man can accomplish anything as president is delusional.
Someone here was fond of saying Sanders would use the bully pulpit to rally Americans for his great social programs. Well, gun background checks has over ninety percent support. Where's that legislation? Mitch McConnell sure doesn't seem pressured to bring it to the Senate for a vote now does he?
I think we're moving past the point of public opinion alone pressuring elected officials. The GOP does not have the popular vote any longer. I don't think people are appreciating the gravity of that.

 

[Gun Nut]

I keep seeing statistics about how well Trump is doing raising money. like he made 40 million and the best Dem only made 30...
this is a strange way of looking at it in my opinion.
it is fair to presume that if any one of the democratic candidates were not running, then the money they raised would have been raised by another candidate. right?? I mean, the dollars for democrats are there... just divided up across all of them. Same as the republicans... all of the available republican dollars are split across all of the republican candidates.. all 1 of them.
So, Trump may have raised a whopping 40 million for the republican side. Biden, Warren, and friends raised far more than that combined for the democratic side already. right?

 

[Gun Nut]

The GOP does not have the popular vote any longer. I don't think people are appreciating the gravity of that.

We don't have "picture tubes" in our TVs any longer either.

I think Bush Sr. was the last Republican that was actually elected by the people to be President of the United States... Since then they have been installed as president by the electoral college.