Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
$1000 to a million people or $100 to 10 million people for their vote. Of course you can never go wrong with hookers and cocaine.
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. (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I saw a speculation when Bloomberg entered that creating a campaign and the fundraising and spending entities connected to that would allow him to spend unlimited money on the campaign legally. To me personally the key is that he stays out as a third party candidate and does not back any independent candidacy. The amount of good he could do in house and senate races could be important too. Hopefully he’s contributing there too.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's the opposite of that. It's easier to spend (your own) unlimited money on an election legally if you don't enter the race and form a campaign.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
The debates, if we actually have them this year, should be a nightmare for Trump if the moderators quote him on stuff like this.
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
I really wish people would stop the back and forths with him and force him to talk policy. That'd be comedy gold.
I'm pretty sure official candidates get preferred ad rates from TV networks, so there is an advantage to entering the race. Not sure how it works if you've already dropped out, though. If you can suspend your campaign and still get candidate rates that sounds like it would be a huge loophole.
There may not be a ton of undecideds, but that doesn't mean they can't play a decisive role in what will almost certainly be another close race. Trump crushed Hillary among late deciders and people who held negative views of both candidates. Hillary made many mistakes, but one of the biggest was focusing almost exclusively on mobilization and not at all on persuasion (as it happens, she didn't do such a great job mobilizing either).
John Maddens Lunchbox
Socialism for Dummies
What is there to stop a rich democrat like Bloomberg paying 50000 known and will vote republican voters $20000 each in say 7 swing states to not vote or if they have prepoll voting to fill it in for the democratic candidate?
Seems a much better use of money and resources. Shadow each of those voters with volunteers to make sure they stick to their end of the bargain.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
John Maddens Lunchbox
Socialism for Dummies
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
What about a hit o' whiskey from this here jug t' convince 'em?
"DON'T BUY ANOTHER VOTE, I WON'T PAY FOR A LANDSLIDE"
Last edited by a moderator:
John Maddens Lunchbox
Socialism for Dummies
And thats why you will have 4 more years of Trump and a stacked republican supreme court.Liberals do.
You have to get down in the dirt, fling mud, disenfranchise tens of thousands of republican voters, put ancient and unreliable voting machines in strongly republican districts. Lie, cheat and claim you have the upper ground. Honesty will get you nowhere unfortunately except 4 more years of Republican rule.
The republicans to their credit only care about one thing.....winning. Who their candidate is, what they do and how they achieve things is irrelevant.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
If Bloomberg we’re running as a Republican would you feel the same way? Every election moving forward will have a billionaire in the race for the sole purpose of spending his billions on his preferred candidate/party? Sounds like it should be illegal.
Mile High
Footballguy
Republicans already have a billionaire running. You would have a problem if he spent his own money to win?
Bloomberg had a great line a few weeks ago when someone asked him if the race needed two NY billionaires and he said, “Who’s the other one?”
Last edited by a moderator:
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
No, I would not feel the same about a Republican spending a billion on the election. Citizens spending lots of money to help the least fortunate = okay with me. Citizens spending lots of money to hurt the poor and help them keep their billions = not something I support.
It's possible to have two thoughts in my head at the same time:
- It is absolutely vital for the future of our democracy that Trump is defeated in November, and Democrats should not unilaterally disarm solely for the sake of intellectual consistency.
- It sets a really bad precedent for billionaires to exert that much influence on our elections. What happens after a Democrat wins on the strength of Bloomberg's spending, and then a week after the election he calls her up and asks for a favor, with the implicit threat that future help might not be forthcoming for her re-election campaign if the favor isn't granted? If Democrats do regain power, I would really like to see them work to reduce the influence of the wealthy on our politics, so we don't have to keep making this Sophie's Choice.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
But that’s what you are going to get. Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the nomination. He is polling at 4%. It’s bad precedent.
The Commish
Footballguy
Bloomberg is a lot of things but he isn't breaking any new ground here other than being forthcoming with where he's spending his money. Precedent was established decades ago. Lots of reasons to push back on this action, but "precedent" isn't one of them.Philo Beddoe said:
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
We have never in the history of this country had a billionaire run a presidential campaign, with near zero chance of winning the nomination, for the sole purpose (admittingly) of defeating the opposing party with his billions. Your claim of precedent is false.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don't think Bloomberg has ever said it was his "sole purpose." I think he would like to win the Presidency but his odds are long and he realizes that.
With that said, why do you think it's so different if Bloomberg the candidate wants to spend a billion dollars as compared to Bloomberg the rich guy non-candidate spending a billion dollars? We've had plenty of really rich donors before (although nobody has personally given as much as Bloomberg is this time).
The Commish
Footballguy
I generally think this is a mischaracterization. I don't believe he's in it to lose. He wants to win. Billionaires have been in charge for decades whether people want to admit that or not. That he's outfront making his intentions clear (should he lose) isn't really a meaningful distinction in terms of precedent IMO. Do you think there is a huge difference between spending billions as a candidate vs spending billions as part of the electorate?
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand (and share, to an extent) your concerns about Bloomberg, but what do you think we should do about it? Should Dems shun his support? Change the laws to prevent people like him from doing this? Is that even possible?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
We can't just change the laws because the Supreme Court has held that candidates have a First Amendment right to spend as much money as they want on their campaigns.
So the only ways to change it would be: 1) if the Supreme Court overturned that precedent or 2) if we passed a constitutional amendment. Neither seems to have any chance of succeeding at this point, but times change. Maybe someday.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I saw an ad today that basically said everyone is sick of Trump (they're not) and everyone would get free healthcare
That's not much of a platform
That's not much of a platform
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
no, it was a youtube popup
said something like forecasted to lose a million jobs per year, nation sick of Trump and then went into healthcare for everyone
The Commish
Footballguy
This is the one I see probably two dozen times a day here in Florida. I like it because it doesn't focus on Trump other than to provide clips of him saying he wants current healthcare to destroy itself. Otherwise it focuses on healthcare professionals explaining what they see in day to day life. It's very appropriate for the state of Florida given the demographics.
That said, I can't help but think, "what happened to you when Obama wanted the public option Mike!!!!"
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I don't think that's accurate. He's already set up infrastructure all over the country for campaigning, and my understanding is those staffers are guaranteed to be paid through the election. His online campaign apparatus (Hawkfish, which he owns) is also contracted through the election.quick-hands said:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
That's something that I don't think we've ever seen before and I'm not exactly sure how it will work logistically. If Bloomberg suspends his campaign, his campaign committee can't just keep spending money, that would violate campaign finance laws. I guess the staffers he's paying would then be paid out of a different entity or something, but I'm not sure how it would work with rental space, etc.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I don't think that's true. I don't believe there is any legal effect to "suspending" a campaign.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Hmmm, I think you're right. I've never encountered a campaign that was no longer advocating for its own candidate but still wanted to spend money in support of or in opposition to other candidates. Under normal circumstances where a campaign is funded by donors that would seem really sketchy but I can't find anything that would make it illegal. In this case where Bloomberg is using all his own money that complication isn't an issue anyway.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It used to be why candidates said they were "suspending" instead of "ending" their campaigns. So they could still take in money and pay off campaign debt.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Michael Irvin would beg to differ.Sheriff Bart said:
James Daulton
Footballguy
He'll go down in history as a hero if he helps rid the country of Trump and his ilk.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I believe that was more about public financing. Campaigns can still take in money to pay debt even after the election has happened.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Right, sorry, that's what I meant. They could still take in public money and pay off debt.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
False equivalence
"David H. Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in 1980. He advocated for the abolition of Social Security, the FBI, the CIA, and public schools. Koch put $500,000 of his own money into the race, and he and Ed Clark, his presidential running mate, won 1.1% of the vote."
the moops
Footballguy
That ad does not mention giving free health care to everyone like you said in your initial post.
Similar threads
