6 ms·

And this is a part of normal functioning american politics. The manufacture of consent, as Noam Chomsky described.

blfr 7y ago
Bloomberg is not manufacturing any consent though. He's just proving, again after Hillary did it in 2016, that money doesn't win elections. I for one am glad this talking point is being finally put to rest.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  I would say paying off media outlets, think tanks, state party leaders, plotting with the DNC for a brokered convention, is beyond a parody of manufactured consent. You’re analogy to Hillary also doesn’t hold much water because his intent is not to become president, but to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination, or, if he does keep Trump in power by poisoning the well in the primaries.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    In the Iowa caucuses, Sanders won a plurality, but tellingly he did terribly in second alignments. (I.e. when other candidates were not viable, those candidates’ supporters avoided Sanders.) That strongly indicates that his support is strong, but has a low ceiling—confined to a plurality of the party. That’s not surprising. The Democratic Party as currently constructed is a third-way coalition including traditional progressives, labor, neo-liberals, and minorities. Sanders might have a plurality of the support in the party, but he threatens to blow up that coalition. A successful Presidential candidate has to win 95% of their own party. But only 76% of Democrats say that they would vote for a socialist: https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-politi.... A successful Presidential candidate has to evenly split independents—who comprise 30% of the electorate—with the other party’s candidate. But independents’ views of socialism are much closer to those of Republicans than to those of Democrats: https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807047941/poll-sanders-rises-but-socialism-isnt-popular-with-most-americans https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807047941/poll-sanders-rises-.... Any successful democratic candidate must win super-majorities of non-white people (90% of African Americans, and 75% of Hispanics and Asians.) But just 33% of non whites have a favorable view of socialism. Bloomberg isn’t “buying” the support of “media outlets, think tanks, and state party leaders.” These are the people who established the third way coalition after devastating losses in the 1980s. These people are already looking for an alternative to Sanders. Bloomberg’s money is just getting his candidacy out there to help coalesce the “not Sanders” majority of the party.
    - chishaku 7y ago
      Your analysis is certainly plausible but I think recent history, especially 2016, has shown that it's hard to trust any analysis that seems to have it all figured out. "Never Trump" seemed to be a bipartisan certainty and we all know how that went.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      It’s telling that you try and pull the whole socialism card and not Sanders’ actual numbers, where he does things like beat Trump with independents by 18 points: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/13/1950/1919/Topline%20Reuters%202020%20Election%20Tracker%2002%2010%202020.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/13/1950/1919/Topli... Leads with Latino voters, is first or second with African American voters, depending on the polling, and is literally the most popular senator in the country: https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings/ https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings/ You’re supposition that there’s going to be some outbreak of pearl clutching about “socialism” is about as plausible that Bloomberg isn’t buying the election.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        I don’t think the national polling at this stage is elucidating. It’s like Biden’s numbers in the Democratic primary. Once the campaigning and debates started, and people became familiar with the candidate, his poll numbers collapsed. That’s why I’m pointing to the polling for socialism. My projection is that Trump will be very effective at making the election a referendum on socialism. It’s going to be wall to wall ads of Sanders’ praise of the USSR, Venezuela, etc. When that starts, I think Sanders’ poll numbers are going to collapse.
        claudeganon 7y ago
        Respectfully, this is as much unfounded speculation as any other questioning of national polling. You’re free to your skepticism of it, but you can’t base arguments on a cherry picking of that skepticism. I think Sanders will have an uphill battle against Trump (as would any of the primary candidates), but the Democrats are guaranteed to lose if he wins a plurality, they broker the convention, pick someone else, and disenfranchise Sanders’ massive base of support. And that is the documented outcome Bloomberg is pursuing: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/bloomberg-brokered-convention-strategy-116407 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/bloomberg-brokered-...
  - klyrs 7y ago
    > You’re analogy to Hillary also doesn’t hold much water because his intent is not to become president... People floated this theory about Trump, 4 years ago. But let's be honest: if bloomberg, or any other billionaire, has an opportunity to seize ever-unchecked control over the richest nation in the world, can you honestly expect them to flinch at taking power and using it to their direct enrichment?
    - avalys 7y ago
      Why would they need to? A billionaire has plenty of money already.
      - klyrs 7y ago
        "Need" isn't really the issue, or, for example, Trump would have divested from his businesses. Instead, he raised prices and has attempted to host the G7 on his own property. Does he NEED that money? No. He WANTS it.
      - v64 7y ago
        One does not become a billionaire if one believes "I have plenty of money already" is a good reason to stop accumulating wealth.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      It's pretty obvious that Bloomberg is not running for his direct enrichment. He has a record as mayor of NYC for 12 years. The most nefarious notion you could come up with, while keeping your head grounded in reality, is self-aggrandizement.
      - rhizome 7y ago
        He bought all of his mayoral re-elections by ensuring his opponents were patsies. He hates talking to regular people, not to mention the poor and the brown, and from the outside would appear to be operating primarily in terms of ego. He's certainly not inclined to justify any of his positions, all of which are why he hides out in TV commercials. When he deigns to appear in public we see him get a critical beatdown like we did in last week's debates, effortlessly. Frankly I see him as a stalking horse for Trump, a research project to see how Dems are strategizing against rich, ego-bound, New York jackasses. Rich people are bound to each other before they are bound to politics, choosing a party is just a matter of personal quirks. They got theirs, the rest is just scorekeeping and princely follies. You can bet Mark Zuckerberg is paying attention, though. He's definitely going to be bored enough to stick a plank out in 5-10 years or so.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  Does money influence elections? I would say sometimes it wins, sometimes it loses. You're not making a strong argument just by pointing to Hillary Clinton. She was already a known entity, how much marketing can really redefine 2 decades in the public eye?
- ac29 7y ago
  He bought his way into second place in a lot of polls, though. Fivethirtyeight still has him as second most likely to receive a plurality of delegates (though a fairly distant second): https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?...

blfr 7y ago

Bloomberg is not manufacturing any consent though. He's just proving, again after Hillary did it in 2016, that money doesn't win elections. I for one am glad this talking point is being finally put to rest.

claudeganon 7y ago
I would say paying off media outlets, think tanks, state party leaders, plotting with the DNC for a brokered convention, is beyond a parody of manufactured consent. You’re analogy to Hillary also doesn’t hold much water because his intent is not to become president, but to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination, or, if he does keep Trump in power by poisoning the well in the primaries.
- rayiner 7y ago
  In the Iowa caucuses, Sanders won a plurality, but tellingly he did terribly in second alignments. (I.e. when other candidates were not viable, those candidates’ supporters avoided Sanders.) That strongly indicates that his support is strong, but has a low ceiling—confined to a plurality of the party. That’s not surprising. The Democratic Party as currently constructed is a third-way coalition including traditional progressives, labor, neo-liberals, and minorities. Sanders might have a plurality of the support in the party, but he threatens to blow up that coalition. A successful Presidential candidate has to win 95% of their own party. But only 76% of Democrats say that they would vote for a socialist: https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-politi.... A successful Presidential candidate has to evenly split independents—who comprise 30% of the electorate—with the other party’s candidate. But independents’ views of socialism are much closer to those of Republicans than to those of Democrats: https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807047941/poll-sanders-rises-but-socialism-isnt-popular-with-most-americans https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807047941/poll-sanders-rises-.... Any successful democratic candidate must win super-majorities of non-white people (90% of African Americans, and 75% of Hispanics and Asians.) But just 33% of non whites have a favorable view of socialism. Bloomberg isn’t “buying” the support of “media outlets, think tanks, and state party leaders.” These are the people who established the third way coalition after devastating losses in the 1980s. These people are already looking for an alternative to Sanders. Bloomberg’s money is just getting his candidacy out there to help coalesce the “not Sanders” majority of the party.
  - chishaku 7y ago
    Your analysis is certainly plausible but I think recent history, especially 2016, has shown that it's hard to trust any analysis that seems to have it all figured out. "Never Trump" seemed to be a bipartisan certainty and we all know how that went.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    It’s telling that you try and pull the whole socialism card and not Sanders’ actual numbers, where he does things like beat Trump with independents by 18 points: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/13/1950/1919/Topline%20Reuters%202020%20Election%20Tracker%2002%2010%202020.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/13/1950/1919/Topli... Leads with Latino voters, is first or second with African American voters, depending on the polling, and is literally the most popular senator in the country: https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings/ https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings/ You’re supposition that there’s going to be some outbreak of pearl clutching about “socialism” is about as plausible that Bloomberg isn’t buying the election.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      I don’t think the national polling at this stage is elucidating. It’s like Biden’s numbers in the Democratic primary. Once the campaigning and debates started, and people became familiar with the candidate, his poll numbers collapsed. That’s why I’m pointing to the polling for socialism. My projection is that Trump will be very effective at making the election a referendum on socialism. It’s going to be wall to wall ads of Sanders’ praise of the USSR, Venezuela, etc. When that starts, I think Sanders’ poll numbers are going to collapse.
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        Respectfully, this is as much unfounded speculation as any other questioning of national polling. You’re free to your skepticism of it, but you can’t base arguments on a cherry picking of that skepticism. I think Sanders will have an uphill battle against Trump (as would any of the primary candidates), but the Democrats are guaranteed to lose if he wins a plurality, they broker the convention, pick someone else, and disenfranchise Sanders’ massive base of support. And that is the documented outcome Bloomberg is pursuing: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/bloomberg-brokered-convention-strategy-116407 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/bloomberg-brokered-...
- klyrs 7y ago
  > You’re analogy to Hillary also doesn’t hold much water because his intent is not to become president... People floated this theory about Trump, 4 years ago. But let's be honest: if bloomberg, or any other billionaire, has an opportunity to seize ever-unchecked control over the richest nation in the world, can you honestly expect them to flinch at taking power and using it to their direct enrichment?
  - avalys 7y ago
    Why would they need to? A billionaire has plenty of money already.
    - klyrs 7y ago
      "Need" isn't really the issue, or, for example, Trump would have divested from his businesses. Instead, he raised prices and has attempted to host the G7 on his own property. Does he NEED that money? No. He WANTS it.
    - v64 7y ago
      One does not become a billionaire if one believes "I have plenty of money already" is a good reason to stop accumulating wealth.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    It's pretty obvious that Bloomberg is not running for his direct enrichment. He has a record as mayor of NYC for 12 years. The most nefarious notion you could come up with, while keeping your head grounded in reality, is self-aggrandizement.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      He bought all of his mayoral re-elections by ensuring his opponents were patsies. He hates talking to regular people, not to mention the poor and the brown, and from the outside would appear to be operating primarily in terms of ego. He's certainly not inclined to justify any of his positions, all of which are why he hides out in TV commercials. When he deigns to appear in public we see him get a critical beatdown like we did in last week's debates, effortlessly. Frankly I see him as a stalking horse for Trump, a research project to see how Dems are strategizing against rich, ego-bound, New York jackasses. Rich people are bound to each other before they are bound to politics, choosing a party is just a matter of personal quirks. They got theirs, the rest is just scorekeeping and princely follies. You can bet Mark Zuckerberg is paying attention, though. He's definitely going to be bored enough to stick a plank out in 5-10 years or so.
chillwaves 7y ago
Does money influence elections? I would say sometimes it wins, sometimes it loses. You're not making a strong argument just by pointing to Hillary Clinton. She was already a known entity, how much marketing can really redefine 2 decades in the public eye?
ac29 7y ago
He bought his way into second place in a lot of polls, though. Fivethirtyeight still has him as second most likely to receive a plurality of delegates (though a fairly distant second): https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?...