6 ms·

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 Ame

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 7y ago
Donald Trump spent less money on the election than Hillary Clinton maybe a counter example that people don't like
- eej71 7y 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.
  - octonion 7y ago
    Populists win elections by scapegoating groups like Jews, socialists, intellectuals, Muslims, blacks or immigrants (depending on which year it is).
    - eej71 7y ago
      This is a popular narrative, but I suspect the reality is - many of these named groups also voted for Trump. Consider this front line report in Ohio. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/outside-coastal-bubbles-to-say-america-is-already-great-rings-hollow https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/outside-coas... "“OK. You want to talk about Trump? I voted for Trump!” I asked him if he was pulling my leg. He laughed. “No way. I may be a Muslim, but I am a businessman first and I am not stupid. Many Muslims here did. Under the table.” He added with a big smile: “We are Americans. We have diverse views also.”"
      - jascii 7y ago
        Anecdotal evidence is no evidence. The vote-count statistics in high-minority districts do not back up your suspicion.
        refurb 7y ago
        Trump got 29% of Hispanic vote, 29% of Asian vote and 37% of the “other” vote. Clearly there are a lot of minorities who voted for him.
        eej71 7y ago
        Not sure why you are getting the down votes...
- leftyted 7y ago
  Yes, she outspent him 2:1: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...
csours 7y ago
I'm sure the electoral college will protect us.
turk73 7y ago
Luckily, we're not a democracy!
- malandrew 7y 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).
  - majormajor 7y ago
    Right now if you want to win the electoral college in the US you can largely rely on manipulating a smaller mob than you would have to otherwise...
    - eej71 7y ago
      You can keep calling it manipulation all you want. But I truly believe both HRC's message reached the voters and that Trump's message also reached the voters and they chose accordingly. Are you suggesting that their respective messages weren't heard? At no point did someone fail to deliver their message. HRC's message (to the extent that it could be parsed) just didn't click with a lot of people. Trump's did.
      - iron0013 7y ago
        But by vote count, Clinton’s message clicked with more people than Trump’s did. That’s why he had to rely on the electoral college to “win” by negative-several-million votes.
        eej71 7y ago
        Why dwell on an irrelevant number? It's not material to the presidential election. At all. There is no reason the mass media should even report it. It's not germane to the outcome. It only serves to confuse everyone. The rules for winning a presidential election are well known and well established. You have to win a majority of the electors spread over many states. This means composing a message that broadly resonates with the country. Trump did that. HRC did not.
empath75 7y ago
I agree with the former, but not the latter.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  I’d be interested to know why not the latter.
  - empath75 7y ago
    Because trump is a fascist willing to break laws to get elected. What Bloomberg is doing is obnoxious but not illegal.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
coolswan 7y 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.

khc 7y ago

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

eej71 7y 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.
- octonion 7y ago
  Populists win elections by scapegoating groups like Jews, socialists, intellectuals, Muslims, blacks or immigrants (depending on which year it is).
  - eej71 7y ago
    This is a popular narrative, but I suspect the reality is - many of these named groups also voted for Trump. Consider this front line report in Ohio. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/outside-coastal-bubbles-to-say-america-is-already-great-rings-hollow https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/outside-coas... "“OK. You want to talk about Trump? I voted for Trump!” I asked him if he was pulling my leg. He laughed. “No way. I may be a Muslim, but I am a businessman first and I am not stupid. Many Muslims here did. Under the table.” He added with a big smile: “We are Americans. We have diverse views also.”"
    - jascii 7y ago
      Anecdotal evidence is no evidence. The vote-count statistics in high-minority districts do not back up your suspicion.
      - refurb 7y ago
        Trump got 29% of Hispanic vote, 29% of Asian vote and 37% of the “other” vote. Clearly there are a lot of minorities who voted for him.
        eej71 7y ago
        Not sure why you are getting the down votes...
leftyted 7y ago
Yes, she outspent him 2:1: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

csours 7y ago

I'm sure the electoral college will protect us.

turk73 7y ago

Luckily, we're not a democracy!

malandrew 7y 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).
- majormajor 7y ago
  Right now if you want to win the electoral college in the US you can largely rely on manipulating a smaller mob than you would have to otherwise...
  - eej71 7y ago
    You can keep calling it manipulation all you want. But I truly believe both HRC's message reached the voters and that Trump's message also reached the voters and they chose accordingly. Are you suggesting that their respective messages weren't heard? At no point did someone fail to deliver their message. HRC's message (to the extent that it could be parsed) just didn't click with a lot of people. Trump's did.
    - iron0013 7y ago
      But by vote count, Clinton’s message clicked with more people than Trump’s did. That’s why he had to rely on the electoral college to “win” by negative-several-million votes.
      - eej71 7y ago
        Why dwell on an irrelevant number? It's not material to the presidential election. At all. There is no reason the mass media should even report it. It's not germane to the outcome. It only serves to confuse everyone. The rules for winning a presidential election are well known and well established. You have to win a majority of the electors spread over many states. This means composing a message that broadly resonates with the country. Trump did that. HRC did not.

empath75 7y ago

I agree with the former, but not the latter.

claudeganon 7y ago
I’d be interested to know why not the latter.
- empath75 7y ago
  Because trump is a fascist willing to break laws to get elected. What Bloomberg is doing is obnoxious but not illegal.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

coolswan 7y 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.