And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[Christabel]

I don't think the data point means what you think it means. I doubt Bloomberg will get much of anywhere.

I'd have to agree with this, mainly because he's just so old he could conk out at any time!!

[SimonNZ]

I'd have to agree with this, mainly because he's just so old he could conk out at any time!!

He's 77 to Trump's 73. And he's carrying considerably less weight, and, I'll wager, has a healthier diet.

[schnittkease]

Let's clarify a few things.

What has Bloomberg done? He has spent $100 million of his own personal wealth to fund a campaign that may or may not be succeeding (depending on how one defines the word). Bloomberg is currently polling at an average of 5.2% nationally; this certainly fits 71 dB's description of "pretty solid support." 71 dB claimed—rightly, IMO—that Bloomberg's ad expenditure contributed to that 5% and Karl rebutted by saying that there is no correlation between ad expenditure and polling since Bloomberg has not gotten "much of anywhere." In Karl's view, this probably means joining the frontrunners, but for 71 dB the bar is lower.

The point I am making is that it is wrong for anyone to be able to completely self-fund a presidential campaign (irrespective of their polling).

[Madiel]

The point I am making is that it is wrong for anyone to be able to completely self-fund a presidential campaign (irrespective of their polling).

Why? Would you rather they be bought by interests? I'm inclined to agree with JBS that someone who can self-fund this is less concerning than someone who has been given a lot of money and therefore is in a position of owing favours.

America is crying out for some kind of campaign finance reform. Perhaps there is merit in regulating spending generally (at least one jurisdiction in Australia has gone down this route, although they then managed to stuff it up when they tried to tighten the spending caps further), but I think the biggest priority ought to be regulating the donations.

One of the biggest barriers to any kind of reform, of course, is the view that money is speech. I think Citizens United is an idiotic decision, and our own High Court has given reasons why it has no intention of following it (essentially that corporations don't vote), but so long as that decision stands you don't have much hope of reining in the spending. And in fact that decision makes it even more implausible that private spending of an individual will be restricted because individuals clearly do have free speech and a role in the political process.

[71 dB]

Let's clarify a few things.

What has Bloomberg done? He has spent $100 million of his own personal wealth to fund a campaign that may or may not be succeeding (depending on how one defines the word). Bloomberg is currently polling at an average of 5.2% nationally; this certainly fits 71 dB's description of "pretty solid support." 71 dB claimed—rightly, IMO—that Bloomberg's ad expenditure contributed to that 5% and Karl rebutted by saying that there is no correlation between ad expenditure and polling since Bloomberg has not gotten "much of anywhere." In Karl's view, this probably means joining the frontrunners, but for 71 dB the bar is lower.

The point I am making is that it is wrong for anyone to be able to completely self-fund a presidential campaign (irrespective of their polling).

Thanks for the support. There is also another issue with Bloomberg. Since he is a media mogule, the people working in the media are willing to be kind to him* in hopes of working under him in the future. No matter how the race goes for him it's a clear case of oligarchy and undermines democracy. If Karl understands this then I apologize and take my words back.

* We can compare how the media writes about Bloomberg compared to say Tulsi Gabbard.

[71 dB]

Why? Would you rather they be bought by interests? I'm inclined to agree with JBS that someone who can self-fund this is less concerning than someone who has been given a lot of money and therefore is in a position of owing favours.

America is crying out for some kind of campaign finance reform. Perhaps there is merit in regulating spending generally (at least one jurisdiction in Australia has gone down this route, although they then managed to stuff it up when they tried to tighten the spending caps further), but I think the biggest priority ought to be regulating the donations.

One of the biggest barriers to any kind of reform, of course, is the view that money is speech. I think Citizens United is an idiotic decision, and our own High Court has given reasons why it has no intention of following it (essentially that corporations don't vote), but so long as that decision stands you don't have much hope of reining in the spending. And in fact that decision makes it even more implausible that private spending of an individual will be restricted because individuals clearly do have free speech and a role in the political process.

Why are constly TV adds needed? It should be cheap to run. What you should have is good ideas and vision that resonates with the people. The candidates could have a webpage where they list what they are for and what they are against and what kind of vision they have for the country/future. Then you have the debates where those ideas are tested. Self-financing is perhaps better than corporate money, but it means the richer you are the better chances you have. Not very democratic. There are talks about "democracy dollars." Everyone is given say $500 to donate to the candidate of their choosing. Rich and poor would have the same political weight. That's democracy.

[Todd]

Why are constly TV adds needed? It should be cheap to run. What you should have is good ideas and vision that resonates with the people. The candidates could have a webpage where they list what they are for and what they are against and what kind of vision they have for the country/future. Then you have the debates where those ideas are tested. Self-financing is perhaps better than corporate money, but it means the richer you are the better chances you have. Not very democratic. There are talks about "democracy dollars." Everyone is given say $500 to donate to the candidate of their choosing. Rich and poor would have the same political weight. That's democracy.

Democrats need more advisors like you.

[schnittkease]

Self-financing is perhaps better than corporate money, but it means the richer you are the better chances you have. Not very democratic. There are talks about "democracy dollars." Everyone is given say $500 to donate to the candidate of their choosing. Rich and poor would have the same political weight. That's democracy.

This.

[Madiel]

Why are constly TV adds needed? It should be cheap to run. What you should have is good ideas and vision that resonates with the people. The candidates could have a webpage where they list what they are for and what they are against and what kind of vision they have for the country/future. Then you have the debates where those ideas are tested. Self-financing is perhaps better than corporate money, but it means the richer you are the better chances you have. Not very democratic. There are talks about "democracy dollars." Everyone is given say $500 to donate to the candidate of their choosing. Rich and poor would have the same political weight. That's democracy.

Your website idea is a little loopy. All it does is the classic social media thing of funnelling people towards views they already have and websites they already know about.

People use TV ads because TV ads reach an audience. That's WHY THEY COST MONEY.

[Madiel]

Similarly, while I'm not against democracy dollars, if they're the sole source of funding then it just means those who are already known and popular get an advantage in increasing their popularity. It discourages new entrants or competing ideas.

[Karl Henning]

I love the "if Karl understands this, then I apologize for being an arsehole" claptrap. Poju, go teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

[71 dB]

I love the "if Karl understands this, then I apologize for being an arsehole" claptrap. Poju, go teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Maybe you don't respect me at all anymore and I have myself to blame as I haven't been always kind/friendly to you, but maybe Krystal Ball makes you see what I and schnittkease mean:

Krystal Ball: Bloomberg's $100 million ad buy is class warfare

https://www.youtube.com/v/-MGY4YlR6WY

[Madiel]

Maybe you don't respect me at all anymore and I have myself to blame as I haven't been always kind/friendly to you, but maybe Krystal Ball makes you see what I and schnittkease mean:

Krystal Ball: Bloomberg's $100 million ad buy is class warfare

https://www.youtube.com/v/-MGY4YlR6WY

We know what you mean. When are you going to realise that?

The lack of comprehension is on your side when you assume that saying Bloomberg is not going to get anywhere is some kind of contrary opinion. It isn't. You yourself, when pressed, said you don't think he's going to get anywhere.

Most of this video isn't anything to do with Bloomberg of course.

[71 dB]

We know what you mean. When are you going to realise that?

The lack of comprehension is on your side when you assume that saying Bloomberg is not going to get anywhere is some kind of contrary opinion. It isn't. You yourself, when pressed, said you don't think he's going to get anywhere.

Most of this video isn't anything to do with Bloomberg of course.

Whether Bloomberg is getting anywhere or not is not the point. The point is he is rich enough to burn 100+ million on TV adds to gain enough support to be considered a serious candidate while surpassing more serious candidates such as Tulsi Gabbard who do not have such financial resourses. If Bloomberg was "only" a millionaire instead of a billinaire (say 1000 times poorer) he would not be able to jump on this race like this. His wealth made it possible. That's oligarchy, something YOU seem hard to understand.

Bloomberg alone of course is not the problem. The real problem is the nature of the US politics which makes this possible. Bloomberg is simply taking advantage of that. That's why the video is not 100 % about Bloomberg.

[JBS]

Whether Bloomberg is getting anywhere or not is not the point. The point is he is rich enough to burn 100+ million on TV adds to gain enough support to be considered a serious candidate while surpassing more serious candidates such as Tulsi Gabbard who do not have such financial resourses. If Bloomberg was "only" a millionaire instead of a billinaire (say 1000 times poorer) he would not be able to jump on this race like this. His wealth made it possible. That's oligarchy, something YOU seem hard to understand.

Bloomberg alone of course is not the problem. The real problem is the nature of the US politics which makes this possible. Bloomberg is simply taking advantage of that. That's why the video is not 100 % about Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is at least as serious a candidate as, if not more than, Gabbard and the rest. You seem to forget that he was mayor of New York, and the only reason he can't be called the most progressive mayor of NYC is because his successor, DiBlasio, is more progressive. Bloomberg's support comes from that, not his ad buys.

[71 dB]

Bloomberg is at least as serious a candidate as, if not more than, Gabbard and the rest. You seem to forget that he was mayor of New York, and the only reason he can't be called the most progressive mayor of NYC is because his successor, DiBlasio, is more progressive. Bloomberg's support comes from that, not his ad buys.

Bloomberg was an unpopular mayor among the regular people, nowhere as popular as Bill de Blasio. The support he had came among the establishment. Calling this man who in 2012 blocked living wage and only now as a candidate is warming up to the idea to gain support because Bernie Sanders has dragged the Overton Window to the left on the issue and 80 % of Americans support it, is a firm advocate of racially discriminative stop-and-frisk policy and doesn't support medicare for all is hardly a progressive. Not even close.  He is a corporate candidate with oligarchic favor of money.

Matt Taylor says it well in his VICE article about Bloomberg's presidential run:

"Bloomberg is a candidate from nowhere, for no one, with nothing to say. But he has the money to make sure everyone pays attention to him."

That said, the left welcomes Bloomberg in the race as in taking some support/votes away for other corporate candidates he only helps Bernie Sanders...

[Karl Henning]

Bloomberg is quite a flawed candidate, which is why I don't think he'll have legs. But JBS' point that he actually has experience in elective office (which is a significant distinction from the current POTUS) and that this is a reasonable driver for his poll results, stands.

[greg]

Poju, go teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Weirdest insult I've heard in a while. 

[Karl Henning]

Weirdest insult I've heard in a while. 

Quite an antique, it is.

[Madiel]

Bloomberg was an unpopular mayor among the regular people, nowhere as popular as Bill de Blasio. The support he had came among the establishment. Calling this man who in 2012 blocked living wage and only now as a candidate is warming up to the idea to gain support because Bernie Sanders has dragged the Overton Window to the left on the issue and 80 % of Americans support it, is a firm advocate of racially discriminative stop-and-frisk policy and doesn't support medicare for all is hardly a progressive. Not even close.  He is a corporate candidate with oligarchic favor of money.

Matt Taylor says it well in his VICE article about Bloomberg's presidential run:

"Bloomberg is a candidate from nowhere, for no one, with nothing to say. But he has the money to make sure everyone pays attention to him."

That said, the left welcomes Bloomberg in the race as in taking some support/votes away for other corporate candidates he only helps Bernie Sanders...

Short version: you don't like Bloomberg so he shouldn't be allowed to run.