What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Michael Bloomberg is going to spend a billion dollars this fall to defeat Donald Trump- no matter who the Democratic candidate is. (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1ZB08S

Bloomberg says it doesn’t matter if he loses the nomination; and it doesn’t matter if it’s Sanders or Warren, Biden or whoever: he will spend whatever it takes to help that candidate win because he regards Donald Trump as a true threat to American democracy. 

This is a new wrinkle, certainly. This morning, Joe Scarborough called it a “game-changer”. Is it? It seems to me that TV commercials, which is the main avenue of spending, has less impact these days than ever before. And yet...it IS impactful. Thoughts? 

 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1ZB08S

Bloomberg says it doesn’t matter if he loses the nomination; and it doesn’t matter if it’s Sanders or Warren, Biden or whoever: he will spend whatever it takes to help that candidate win because he regards Donald Trump as a true threat to American democracy. 

This is a new wrinkle, certainly. This morning, Joe Scarborough called it a “game-changer”. Is it? It seems to me that TV commercials, which is the main avenue of spending, has less impact these days than ever before. And yet...it IS impactful. Thoughts? 
Can’t hurt - also, with a Billion dollars you can do a lot of grass roots work - would be money well spent to have people In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania going door to door to get out the vote.

 
I'm skeptical that spending really matters that much in presidential elections, assuming you're over a basic threshold that allows the campaign to operate.  Both major-party candidates get saturation media coverage for free, and that's more true today than at any other time in history thanks to social media.  Trump didn't spend a lot and ran an incompetent campaign and still won.  (Granted, he had a very weak opponent, but whoever wins the Democratic nomination is also going to get to run against a very weak opponent).

 
A rich guy spending a billion dollars of his own money has been legal since the 1970s.

I don’t think it’s a good thing but it’s not new.
I don’t think it’s a good thing either but it will be interesting to see if any on the left denounce this. Especially the vocal critics of the citizens united decision. 

 
I'm skeptical that spending really matters that much in presidential elections, assuming you're over a basic threshold that allows the campaign to operate.  Both major-party candidates get saturation media coverage for free, and that's more true today than at any other time in history thanks to social media.  Trump didn't spend a lot and ran an incompetent campaign and still won.  (Granted, he had a very weak opponent, but whoever wins the Democratic nomination is also going to get to run against a very weak opponent).
:goodposting:

I believe Romney outspent Obama in 2012 as well (if you include SuperPACs), so that would be two elections in a row where the candidate with less money won. Spending can have a huge impact on, say, state legislative races where a billionaire swoops in and drops a mil on their favored candidate. But it has decreasing marginal utility in a race where everyone is paying attention.

One thing that encourages me about Bloomberg: He's not one of those dumb rich guys lighting his cigars with $100 bills just because he can. If he's going to spend $1B, I'm confident he's going to put the money where it can do the most good, not where some consultants are telling him to spend it so they can fatten their commissions. My guess is he ends up spending a lot on digital campaigns.

 
A rich guy spending a billion dollars of his own money has been legal since the 1970s.

I don’t think it’s a good thing but it’s not new.
I don’t think it’s a good thing either but it will be interesting to see if any on the left denounce this. Especially the vocal critics of the citizens united decision. 
FG is one of those :mellow:

But I'm struggling to see how this is being tied to CU though.

 
FG is one of those :mellow:

But I'm struggling to see how this is being tied to CU though.
Sorry I know FGs opinion carries a lot of weight but someone outside the FBG strata-sphere. 

“We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections, and that is why we are going to overturn Citizens United, that is why multibillionaires like Mr. Bloomberg are not going to get very far in this election.” Sanders

“If Michael Bloomberg’s version of democracy wins, then democracy changes,” the senior senator from Massachusetts thundered. “And it’s going to be about which billionaire you can stomach going forward.” Warren

 
Sorry I know FGs opinion carries a lot of weight but someone outside the FBG strata-sphere. 

“We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections, and that is why we are going to overturn Citizens United, that is why multibillionaires like Mr. Bloomberg are not going to get very far in this election.” Sanders

“If Michael Bloomberg’s version of democracy wins, then democracy changes,” the senior senator from Massachusetts thundered. “And it’s going to be about which billionaire you can stomach going forward.” Warren
If these are actual quotes (I don't know if they are or not) then isn't that what you're asking for?  :oldunsure:  

 
Can’t hurt - also, with a Billion dollars you can do a lot of grass roots work - would be money well spent to have people In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania going door to door to get out the vote.
I agree but you only want people to get out and vote if they are voting for the side you want to win.   If not then stay home.

 
Also here in Colorado. My opinion is getting out the vote is what will defeat Trump. Target the swing states get out the votets.
That seems to be how it works most of the time.  The higher the voter participation rate the better for the Dems.  The lower the voter participation rate the better for the GOP.  So far here he's hitting hard with Trump's words against Obamacare.  That's mainly what I've seen so far.

 
Have to admit, I'm kinda confused with respect to the "concern" here  :confused:  
I want to see Trump lose and I’m in favor of any legal way to make that happen. 

That being said, in a purely theoretical way, it does bother me. Sheldon Adelson strongly influenced a recent Israeli election in favor of Netanyahu’s candidates with his own cash. The Koch’s have had similar influence here (though I think they use corporate means.) I’m not in love with the idea of rich powerful people having such a huge influence on public elections, even if I agree with their ideas a lot of the time. 

 
I want to see Trump lose and I’m in favor of any legal way to make that happen. 

That being said, in a purely theoretical way, it does bother me. Sheldon Adelson strongly influenced a recent Israeli election in favor of Netanyahu’s candidates with his own cash. The Koch’s have had similar influence here (though I think they use corporate means.) I’m not in love with the idea of rich powerful people having such a huge influence on public elections, even if I agree with their ideas a lot of the time. 
the whole concept sucks to me...always has, always will.

 
LOL.  Glad he's going to pump money into the economy.  Surprised he made it to billionaire status...usually they are smarter than this.  

 
I want to see Trump lose and I’m in favor of any legal way to make that happen. 

That being said, in a purely theoretical way, it does bother me. Sheldon Adelson strongly influenced a recent Israeli election in favor of Netanyahu’s candidates with his own cash. The Koch’s have had similar influence here (though I think they use corporate means.) I’m not in love with the idea of rich powerful people having such a huge influence on public elections, even if I agree with their ideas a lot of the time. 
Same as day 1.

 
Same as day 1.
I realize that. 

And I’m also not in love with populism either. Trump is a good sign of what can go wrong when the elites DON’T win. 

Ideally speaking I’d love a fair election where an educated populace listened to opposing ideas and made smart, unselfish choices. But I get that’s never happened and probably never will. 

 
That seems to be how it works most of the time.  The higher the voter participation rate the better for the Dems.  The lower the voter participation rate the better for the GOP.  So far here he's hitting hard with Trump's words against Obamacare.  That's mainly what I've seen so far.
Probably why Trump tweeted this. 

Mini Mike Bloomberg is spending a lot of money on False Advertising. I was the person who saved Pre-Existing Conditions in your Healthcare, you have it now, while at the same time winning the fight to rid you of the expensive, unfair and very unpopular Individual Mandate.....

and, if Republicans win in court and take back the House of Represenatives, your healthcare, that I have now brought to the best place in many years, will become the best ever, by far. I will always protect your Pre-Existing Conditions, the Dems will not!

 
Probably why Trump tweeted this. 

Mini Mike Bloomberg is spending a lot of money on False Advertising. I was the person who saved Pre-Existing Conditions in your Healthcare, you have it now, while at the same time winning the fight to rid you of the expensive, unfair and very unpopular Individual Mandate.....

and, if Republicans win in court and take back the House of Represenatives, your healthcare, that I have now brought to the best place in many years, will become the best ever, by far. I will always protect your Pre-Existing Conditions, the Dems will not!
:lmao:

I don't do twitter all that much, but I probably should.  The ad here is actual video of him talking about letting Obamacare "implode".  If that happens, pre-existing conditions go with it.  He really has no clue with respect to policy.  I'm not actually sure he knows that preexisting conditions is part of Obamacare :lol:  

I really wish people would stop the back and forths with him and force him to talk policy.  That'd be comedy gold.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I want to see Trump lose and I’m in favor of any legal way to make that happen. 

That being said, in a purely theoretical way, it does bother me. Sheldon Adelson strongly influenced a recent Israeli election in favor of Netanyahu’s candidates with his own cash. The Koch’s have had similar influence here (though I think they use corporate means.) I’m not in love with the idea of rich powerful people having such a huge influence on public elections, even if I agree with their ideas a lot of the time. 
Thank you Tim. This article clearly does a better job articulating a point than I do :-).CU

 
Thank you Tim. This article clearly does a better job articulating a point than I do :-).CU
Follow now....above was very confusing so thanks for the clarification.  I'd be SHOCKED if Bernie decides to embrace Citizens United.  I am absolutely confident he will continue to move towards removing it.  I'm not much of a gambler, so we can do a gentlemen's bet on his if interested :hifive:  

 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1ZB08S

Bloomberg says it doesn’t matter if he loses the nomination; and it doesn’t matter if it’s Sanders or Warren, Biden or whoever: he will spend whatever it takes to help that candidate win because he regards Donald Trump as a true threat to American democracy. 

This is a new wrinkle, certainly. This morning, Joe Scarborough called it a “game-changer”. Is it? It seems to me that TV commercials, which is the main avenue of spending, has less impact these days than ever before. And yet...it IS impactful. Thoughts? 
Certainly lessens an advantage that Trump had, both in money and incumbency. 

That being said, I'm not sure there's a big demographic that is undecided in how they view Trump.....so I don't know how much the money will sway people. Maybe it's more of an effort to get out a vote...as I do think if the "vote gets out"....Trump will get squashed. 

ETA: I did hear a radio ad over the weekend that talked about how in "200X two votes decided a State Election and in 201X.....one vote decided one....so make sure yours counts".....so maybe thats the plan.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top