10 ms·

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 the

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.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y 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.
morelisp 7y 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 7y 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.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    zero delegates won so far too, last time I checked.
ineedasername 7y 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 7y ago
The story is that the method is unorthodox. At least the article uses that word.
- _jal 7y 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-hiring-politics-campaign-2016/399002/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/crowd-h...
  - ta999999171 7y ago
    The story is that people still haven't rebuffed it as a whole. We should keep complaining until they do. What exactly does your comment attempt to achieve? Don't care yourself? Don't read the story, don't comment - or at least don't be surprised when you're rebuffed, too.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- grumple 7y 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 7y 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.
- brighton36 7y ago
  Might makes right.
  - farisjarrah 7y ago
    The last time I saw that statement was in T.H. White's Once and Future King, talking about Medieval battles and governance....
    - godzillabrennus 7y ago
      That seems to be the issue. People have largely forgotten how terrible we have been toward one another. Every generation needs the education or they will repeat the past.
    - brighton36 7y ago
      I didn't mean to express that with enthusiasm. It's just what I see.
- duxup 7y 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.
  - fennecfoxen 7y ago
    The "right process" is whichever one ends up nominating Hillary Clinton. ... I'm only partly joking; I am not a fan of the idea that there are some special gatekeepers or One True Process™ for determining who's allowed to talk to voters. The things Bloomberg has meaningfully "wrong" in terms of process look something like this: - he is be a rich person (definitely not trendy in the party), and... - his failure to solicit donations deprives people of one meaningful test of his political appeal, instead - he spends his own money on politics instead: an uncool, Constitutionally protected exercise of the First Amendment, which has an unfortunate interaction with the political narrative that _Citizens United_ must be restored (though in fact it wouldn't stop him from doing this) Needless to say, arguing about some of these "violations" is actually in practice just arguing about ideology and might be more effectively approached as such.
jariel 7y 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.
- kennywinker 7y 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.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    I just don't get the socialist views people have here. Where do you think the moral cash limit should be? 10 million or 100 million? When does your success turn you evil? I don't see how you can say those things when you live in such a nice capitalistic economy when the rest of the socialist/communist world is in such turmoil. You're in the field that embraces capitalism the most, and it's beautiful. You can start a company in your garage and build an empire from nothing, and many of us have.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      i think the moral limit should be set in a way that all citizens benefit from a growing economy equally. I view it as a moral failing of a society that the upper x percent are steadily increase their share of the output of the economy while a majority doesn’t benefit much from growth.
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        Some humans are lazy and some humans are greedy. Capitalism exploits the greedy humans into generating wealth by rewarding them greatly, it also generates many jobs and assets for the economy. Yes that one person gets rewarded greatly, but many masses would not benefit if they never existed or were never motivated to do those things. The lazy humans will fleece the system until there's nothing left. Some people need survival to motivate them to climb. Socialism fails when you run out of other people's money. There's many examples of that.
rpastuszak 7y 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.
brightstep 7y 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.
zone411 7y ago
Let's stay accurate, shall we? $2500/month at 20-30 hours per week is $19-$29/hour.
oarabbus_ 7y ago
What qualifies as a story for you? This is unprecedented in the history of US politics.
- dorkinspace 7y ago
  Is it unprecedented? HRC did the exact same thing.
  - oarabbus_ 7y ago
    On this scale it's absolutely unprecedented. Certainly worthy of a news story.
doggydogs94 7y ago
Do some searches on Google. You will discover that Bloomberg is paying employees much more than other presidential candidates.

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.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y 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.

morelisp 7y 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 7y 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.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  zero delegates won so far too, last time I checked.

ineedasername 7y 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 7y ago

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

_jal 7y 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-hiring-politics-campaign-2016/399002/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/crowd-h...
- ta999999171 7y ago
  The story is that people still haven't rebuffed it as a whole. We should keep complaining until they do. What exactly does your comment attempt to achieve? Don't care yourself? Don't read the story, don't comment - or at least don't be surprised when you're rebuffed, too.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
grumple 7y 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 7y 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.

brighton36 7y ago
Might makes right.
- farisjarrah 7y ago
  The last time I saw that statement was in T.H. White's Once and Future King, talking about Medieval battles and governance....
  - godzillabrennus 7y ago
    That seems to be the issue. People have largely forgotten how terrible we have been toward one another. Every generation needs the education or they will repeat the past.
  - brighton36 7y ago
    I didn't mean to express that with enthusiasm. It's just what I see.
duxup 7y 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.
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  The "right process" is whichever one ends up nominating Hillary Clinton. ... I'm only partly joking; I am not a fan of the idea that there are some special gatekeepers or One True Process™ for determining who's allowed to talk to voters. The things Bloomberg has meaningfully "wrong" in terms of process look something like this: - he is be a rich person (definitely not trendy in the party), and... - his failure to solicit donations deprives people of one meaningful test of his political appeal, instead - he spends his own money on politics instead: an uncool, Constitutionally protected exercise of the First Amendment, which has an unfortunate interaction with the political narrative that _Citizens United_ must be restored (though in fact it wouldn't stop him from doing this) Needless to say, arguing about some of these "violations" is actually in practice just arguing about ideology and might be more effectively approached as such.

jariel 7y 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.

kennywinker 7y 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.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  I just don't get the socialist views people have here. Where do you think the moral cash limit should be? 10 million or 100 million? When does your success turn you evil? I don't see how you can say those things when you live in such a nice capitalistic economy when the rest of the socialist/communist world is in such turmoil. You're in the field that embraces capitalism the most, and it's beautiful. You can start a company in your garage and build an empire from nothing, and many of us have.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    i think the moral limit should be set in a way that all citizens benefit from a growing economy equally. I view it as a moral failing of a society that the upper x percent are steadily increase their share of the output of the economy while a majority doesn’t benefit much from growth.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      Some humans are lazy and some humans are greedy. Capitalism exploits the greedy humans into generating wealth by rewarding them greatly, it also generates many jobs and assets for the economy. Yes that one person gets rewarded greatly, but many masses would not benefit if they never existed or were never motivated to do those things. The lazy humans will fleece the system until there's nothing left. Some people need survival to motivate them to climb. Socialism fails when you run out of other people's money. There's many examples of that.

rpastuszak 7y 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.

brightstep 7y 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.

zone411 7y ago

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

oarabbus_ 7y ago

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

dorkinspace 7y ago
Is it unprecedented? HRC did the exact same thing.
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  On this scale it's absolutely unprecedented. Certainly worthy of a news story.

doggydogs94 7y ago

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