9 ms·

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'

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.
  - duxup 7y ago
    It is difficult to have these conversations and not think that people are just determining right and wrong by whatever they do or do not like based on what is immediately in front of them
    - refurb 7y ago
      You’ve noticed huh? Politics lately seems to be:1) paint candidate in the best light, 2) paint opponent in the worst light. Note: there is no requirement to have a consistent set of rules to do this.
      - Gibbon1 7y ago
        > Politics lately Mark Twain: Running for Governor [Written about 1870] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#governor https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#gover...
        duxup 7y ago
        That man is always so on point.
crazypyro 7y 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...
jr46tjdr 7y 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.
AndrewUnmuted 7y 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?
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  "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." So what though? What point is this rebutting? If a process is crooked and disgusting then damn straight you're gonna have people complaining about it and demanding they do better, as you see here.
  - AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
    My point is rebutting the point made by the poster before me, who said there was a real story here. I disagree. This is somewhat par for the course. For many people, this could be the first time they experience the disappointment of how corrupt folks like Bloomberg operate within the political sphere. However, these people would be incorrect to chalk this up as historically or even politically noteworthy, for many of us this is rather unsurprising and the story has already been told many times. Why rehash these tired tropes when Bloomberg presents so many new, unique, and significant issues that we now must address?
leftyted 7y 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.
- Thlom 7y ago
  Isn’t the road appeal simply a result of him bombarding the airwaves in Super Tuesday states? So called “soft support”.
travisoneill1 7y ago
Doesn't polling above 10% make him a legitimate candidate?
beepboopbeep 7y 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.

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.
- duxup 7y ago
  It is difficult to have these conversations and not think that people are just determining right and wrong by whatever they do or do not like based on what is immediately in front of them
  - refurb 7y ago
    You’ve noticed huh? Politics lately seems to be:1) paint candidate in the best light, 2) paint opponent in the worst light. Note: there is no requirement to have a consistent set of rules to do this.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      > Politics lately Mark Twain: Running for Governor [Written about 1870] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#governor https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#gover...
      - duxup 7y ago
        That man is always so on point.

crazypyro 7y 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...

jr46tjdr 7y 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.

AndrewUnmuted 7y 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?

CydeWeys 7y ago
"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." So what though? What point is this rebutting? If a process is crooked and disgusting then damn straight you're gonna have people complaining about it and demanding they do better, as you see here.
- AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
  My point is rebutting the point made by the poster before me, who said there was a real story here. I disagree. This is somewhat par for the course. For many people, this could be the first time they experience the disappointment of how corrupt folks like Bloomberg operate within the political sphere. However, these people would be incorrect to chalk this up as historically or even politically noteworthy, for many of us this is rather unsurprising and the story has already been told many times. Why rehash these tired tropes when Bloomberg presents so many new, unique, and significant issues that we now must address?

leftyted 7y 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.

Thlom 7y ago
Isn’t the road appeal simply a result of him bombarding the airwaves in Super Tuesday states? So called “soft support”.

travisoneill1 7y ago

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

beepboopbeep 7y 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.