George Washington lost his first campaign to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1755, 271-40.
When he ran again 3 years later he gave away 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and two gallons of cider royal — "nearly enough for a half-gallon per voter." And guess what, he won.
Considering we wouldn't even declare independence until 18 years later, it's safe to say that buying influence in an election has been American since the beginning, and even before.
What is healthy, is that an American spent his money how he liked, the American media is free enough to have reported on it, American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people.
He's not purchasing anything - as long as Americans care enough to be informed, he's blowing hot air that no one will believe.
Cause after the oligarch looses then Zuckerberg, Kushner and other sundry mindlessly ambitious people might rethink their future plans to run. At least for a few years.
in fairness, there are two billionaires running on one side and a near billionaire (trump) on the other side. at least one (Ross Perot) has run in the past.
having a lot of money makes it easier to run, but there's no guarantee of success
People are still voting to choose him. He is making his case for why he should be president, people are deciding they like his more than others, so they vote for him.
That individuals can shake up the system, but only if they can convince voters to vote for them, is a sign of health in a democracy. The alternative is deeper two-party stagnation.
Healthy? No. But its as American as apple pie. Everything these days,in America is based on money.
The entire political process is based on money (fundraising determines whether you're even on the ballot or a debate or able to be on a ticket) and controlled by money as there is a direct correlation between media spend and campaign success.
The worst part is that the "media" is the one sector in our country that has the most to gain from chaos and they're the ones who for the most part, control the dialog and the direction and worse, the cost.
Frankly, I am more shocked by the fact that people dont understand that its all about money.
It's not, but hasn't money always played a big role in politics? It's hard to define where a wealthy persons legitimate advantage lies and when it becomes purchasing the presidency. I'm all for a meritocracy, but getting money out of politics doesn't seem like anything easily solved.
I'd respect the hell out of Bloomberg if he came out and said "damn right I'm buying this election...because the rules are that messed up" followed by a comprehensive plan to forever get money out of our elections.
He's pointing to the impact his $400M political donations have made, like getting women elected, stopping homelessness, youth education, etc. whenever asked.
This $2,500/mo for influencers is a drop in the bucket.
I respect the guy that's said that very thing since he started running. Bernie is proving that we can win without corporate PAC money and he has a plan to get dark money out of politics.
This is the game that is being played : https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-202... (The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President). The article is a little biased, but shows the sophistication required to play.
To bring a contrarian pt of view:
If you are a billionaire and you ask for donations, people might say, "Why are you asking us for money, why don't use your own?"
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.
I wonder if the entire race could be won by offering an incentive of sorts. Say a $50 Amazon gift card for every (new) voter who sends a pic of their vote receipt or something... Granted its a lot of money, but so is gifting billions to the media conglomerates for more (useless) ads...
> a man who built his own personal tech/media empire.
Well, him and the three other people with the skills to actually built it.. he just provided the seed capital and then put his name on it. Secunda, MacMillan and Zegar are all billionaires.
They're building it, and seem to be recruiting heavily from Google/Facebook/Amazon etc.
From a political science and historical perspective it's absolutely astonishing. Mike has a lot of baggage but a lot of cash and talent behind him, including ~100 pretty excellent TV and online ads.
Trump is highly unlikely to be a billionaire. The only source for this claim was Trump himself. He took on an alter ego and lied to Forbes to get on the Forbes list.
Other than Forbes, I know of no source that claimed Trump was a billionaire. I think it all goes back to the original lie.
Further, most of his charity scams have been strictly small time. Amounts ranging from $10,000 to a few hundred thousand. No billionaire needs to bother scamming figures so low. If you have, say, $5 billion in net worth and it grows at 5% per year, that’s $250 million per year.
$100,000 is strictly beneath the notice of someone with that much income. But it was not below Trump’s notice. Ergo, it seems unlikely he has the income. Again, the only source on his wealth was himself.
I should note, against my own argument, that Forbes presently thinks Trump is worth $4.4 billion. I could be wrong, but the charity behaviour seems so contrary to actually having wealth. We also know no banks other than Deutsche Bank would lend Trump money. If he truly has billions in assets not encumbered by debt....why? There seems little risk.
Paid shills tend to have a strange effect where they polarize people in the other direction than intended since their arguments are not always well founded and honest, and they will always suffer from some form of groupthink. It's a slingshot effect--at first people fall for the farce, but soon they realize they have been mislead. It could even spoil the election and get some to vote in the opposite direction.
I think it's also pretty easy to spot these days and we're armed much better to fight it at the platform-level.
I don't think this will end well for Bloomberg, he has a long way to climb, and his name is literally associated with big money. He may have already reached saturation, and this is a dying move.
It may be an unpopular opinion, but I am ok with Bloomberg spending some of his money. Granted, 300MM to him like approximately $20 to me, but still..
Do not misunderstand me. His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly. That said, I am perfectly fine with him finally spending at least some of his vast fortune instead of hoarding it like a dragon.
Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate.
I don't like this idea of buying elections. But at the very least, I'm happy to see the Democratic machine upside-down, with all of the designated incumbent royalty falling behind the outsiders.
Shilling on social media appeared overnight. Literally a switch was turned on and suddenly hundreds of "totally organic" posts about Bloomberg are popping up everywhere mimicking local forum/board subcultures. Many of the people seem to be posting somewhat ironically, though it seems his campaign has attempted to embrace the same style of "no press is bad press" attention that undoubtedly contributed to Trump's election.
It's pretty gross to watch someone literally buy an election. I hope he fails. But there's a good chance he'll get far, because though he is running as a Democrat, many of his past statements regarding women, minorities, and stop and frisk appeal to the non-PC Republican sentiment that worked in the last election. And you can count on the fact that the average person won't understand that none of this buzz is organic.
He's just protecting his fortune against Bernie. Spend a billion, keep the remaining 39. Good deal. He will lose even if he does get nominated, and he's OK with that. This is a page directly from Trump's playbook: Trump routinely puts himself into situations where there are several ways for him to win and no way to really lose.
If Bloomberg get elected and successfully purchases the presidency, I’m moving my family out of the US. I will no long contribute to our collective GDP or pay taxes. I’ll vote with my feet if I can’t vote with my rights as an American citizen.
Jeb Bush spent $130 million to lose the Republican primary. Hillary Clinton spent probably an order of magnitude more to lose the general election. Both outspent Donald Trump just to lose to him in their respective races. Money isn't everything and Bloomberg is risking alienating voters with his ham fisted advertising. His ads on YouTube are non-skippable. He paid extra for that yet it's more likely to anger viewers than to get their votes. If his social media army is just as obnoxious in their campaigning for him, well, a fool and their money are soon parted.
He would probably never do that, but I wouldn't begrudge Sanders if in case of a contested convention and having amassed the most delegates he would go 'Your call, but if you throw this to Bloomberg you should plan on a scenario of him running against Trump and myself as Independent' of course Bloomberg could do that too and in fact might be counting on it. And then it will be a game of chicken with a 2nd Trump presidency as the cliff, or maybe they'll just give it to Klobuchar
[+] [-] jdkee|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ordinaryperson|6 years ago|reply
When he ran again 3 years later he gave away 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and two gallons of cider royal — "nearly enough for a half-gallon per voter." And guess what, he won.
Considering we wouldn't even declare independence until 18 years later, it's safe to say that buying influence in an election has been American since the beginning, and even before.
[1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12384/swilling-planters-...
[+] [-] ColanR|6 years ago|reply
He's not purchasing anything - as long as Americans care enough to be informed, he's blowing hot air that no one will believe.
[+] [-] polly5|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimbokun|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ourmandave|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hooande|6 years ago|reply
having a lot of money makes it easier to run, but there's no guarantee of success
[+] [-] austhrow743|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SamReidHughes|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tropo|6 years ago|reply
1. purchase it with their own money
2. purchase it with money from bribes
3. blackmail party insiders for the nomination and support
Using their own money is the cleanest and most honest way to do things.
[+] [-] NotSammyHagar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] takeda|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 12xo|6 years ago|reply
The entire political process is based on money (fundraising determines whether you're even on the ballot or a debate or able to be on a ticket) and controlled by money as there is a direct correlation between media spend and campaign success.
The worst part is that the "media" is the one sector in our country that has the most to gain from chaos and they're the ones who for the most part, control the dialog and the direction and worse, the cost.
Frankly, I am more shocked by the fact that people dont understand that its all about money.
[+] [-] reroute1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0x8BADF00D|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dennisgorelik|6 years ago|reply
The more influence successful people have on politics - the better it is for the country overall.
Countries that try to manage themselves by poor majority - quickly deteriorate into chaos or into dictatorship.
[+] [-] zelias|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ep103|6 years ago|reply
Bloomberg is the guy the rules were written to benefit. He doesn't want them changed.
That's why he chose to run against Sanders, when it appeared Sanders could win.
[+] [-] three_seagrass|6 years ago|reply
He's pointing to the impact his $400M political donations have made, like getting women elected, stopping homelessness, youth education, etc. whenever asked.
This $2,500/mo for influencers is a drop in the bucket.
[+] [-] burtonator|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omegaworks|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scollet|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajoy|6 years ago|reply
To bring a contrarian pt of view: If you are a billionaire and you ask for donations, people might say, "Why are you asking us for money, why don't use your own?"
[+] [-] grumple|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 12xo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neonate|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] werber|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonAndOn|6 years ago|reply
I'd bet dollars to donuts Mike's got a tech team in place right now that is running rings around the DNC's haphazard patronage party.
[+] [-] mAEStro-paNDa|6 years ago|reply
Sounds more like a lack of choice.
[+] [-] takeda|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akira2501|6 years ago|reply
Well, him and the three other people with the skills to actually built it.. he just provided the seed capital and then put his name on it. Secunda, MacMillan and Zegar are all billionaires.
[+] [-] nappy-doo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akhilcacharya|6 years ago|reply
From a political science and historical perspective it's absolutely astonishing. Mike has a lot of baggage but a lot of cash and talent behind him, including ~100 pretty excellent TV and online ads.
[+] [-] ErikAugust|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huebomont|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boourns311|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graeme|6 years ago|reply
Other than Forbes, I know of no source that claimed Trump was a billionaire. I think it all goes back to the original lie.
Further, most of his charity scams have been strictly small time. Amounts ranging from $10,000 to a few hundred thousand. No billionaire needs to bother scamming figures so low. If you have, say, $5 billion in net worth and it grows at 5% per year, that’s $250 million per year.
$100,000 is strictly beneath the notice of someone with that much income. But it was not below Trump’s notice. Ergo, it seems unlikely he has the income. Again, the only source on his wealth was himself.
I should note, against my own argument, that Forbes presently thinks Trump is worth $4.4 billion. I could be wrong, but the charity behaviour seems so contrary to actually having wealth. We also know no banks other than Deutsche Bank would lend Trump money. If he truly has billions in assets not encumbered by debt....why? There seems little risk.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/05/08/why-we-...
[+] [-] solinent|6 years ago|reply
I think it's also pretty easy to spot these days and we're armed much better to fight it at the platform-level.
I don't think this will end well for Bloomberg, he has a long way to climb, and his name is literally associated with big money. He may have already reached saturation, and this is a dying move.
[+] [-] sjg007|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyfon|6 years ago|reply
Talk about buying the election.
Are anyone going to be fooled by this?
Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|6 years ago|reply
Do not misunderstand me. His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly. That said, I am perfectly fine with him finally spending at least some of his vast fortune instead of hoarding it like a dragon.
Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate.
[+] [-] slumdev|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] allovernow|6 years ago|reply
It's pretty gross to watch someone literally buy an election. I hope he fails. But there's a good chance he'll get far, because though he is running as a Democrat, many of his past statements regarding women, minorities, and stop and frisk appeal to the non-PC Republican sentiment that worked in the last election. And you can count on the fact that the average person won't understand that none of this buzz is organic.
[+] [-] m0zg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dukoid|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newshorts|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mountain_Skies|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 300bps|6 years ago|reply
http://archive.is/WuPf8
[+] [-] seemslegit|6 years ago|reply