Let Him Run!

I, for one, don’t see a downside to Bloomberg flushing his money down the toilet running for President. I do, however, see a pretty big upside (sorry about the paywall, but the headline pretty much says it all).

I’d say I don’t think Bloomberg has a prayer of taking the Dem nomination, but I would have said the same thing about Trump when he threw-in. Bloomberg has enough money to fund a Presidential campaign to the hilt while still keeping gun control groups at the same lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

I’d say his money is not to be underestimated, but it does look like enough key Dems are worried about this on Twitter. I think it hurt Creepy Joe. Probably helps Liz Warren and Bernie, since they will be the contrast. Bloomberg’s entry tells me that the money is worried about Biden’s ability to close the deal. They are right to be worried.

23 thoughts on “Let Him Run!”

  1. If Bloomberg loses, we will have seen peak Bloomberg. Forever more, Bloomberg will have been proven a loser and that will affect all the Moms Demanding Action going forward. The Wizard is very scary, until we see the little old man behind the curtain.

    I doubt Bloomberg will win the primary. But if for some reason he does, I think he will be a tough competitor to Trump. Who wins “NY Billionaire with NY Values vs New York Billionaire with NY Values” battle? No one, really.

    The best case scenario (for gun rights) is that Bloomberg wins the primary and loses the general – gun control will be a proven loser.

    1. In a NY Billionarie with New York Values vs New York Billionaire with NY Values battle, I would expect the advantage to go to the one who already has the office.

      Indeed, one major reason Willie Wilkens lost the Presidency running against FDR was because the issue he chose to campaign on — that we needed to be prepared to join the war in Europe — was one that FDR was willing to adopt for himself. While giving FDR a run for his money, it wasn’t enough to overcome the advantage of incumbency.

  2. If Bloomberg was smart then he’d use his billions to buy Fox News and make it less conservative.

    1. “he’d use his billions to buy Fox News and make it less conservative.”

      I’d suspect he’d find it wasn’t for sale, regardless of the price offered; I think it’s part of a much larger international movement that can’t safely be double-crossed.

      But then, I always was a sucker for conspiracy theories. ;-)

    2. he already owns Bloomberg.com and Bloomberg news. Basically he made his billions delivering information to Wall St on specialized terminals.

    3. The younger Murdocks are doing just fine at making Fox less conservative. Bloomberg can save his money.

    4. Glenn Reynolds has been saying for some time now that if the Koch brothers were smart, they’d buy women’s magazines and magazines like Teen Vogue. 9 out of 10 articles would be the vapid fashion and pop articles that are popular on those sites, and the remaining would be articles that are pop-ish in nature, but actually cast conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans in a rosy light.

  3. A concept that has crossed my mind, but I haven’t thought through well is, that among all of the people who say they don’t support Trump, the Democrats’ primary could be perceived as the POTUS election itself, and the voting population’s taste for a far-left versus center-left (Social Democrat versus Bloomberg “mainstream”) contest satisfied; with whichever way the result turns out considered to be only waiting to be ratified in November 2020. Of course if the excitement of a contest has been removed, that could minimize Democratic turnout, if Ds are assuming there is “no contest” with Trump.

    Of course I’m looking at that from the perspective of a resident of a large regional suburbs where Democrat Dogcatchers have been elected in both 2017 and 2019, apparently just because they aren’t Republicans; that in what was formerly reasonably reliable Republican counties. I observe that Republicans pushed legislation to disable straight-ticket voting on our voting machines, where formerly Rs were the strongest advocates for straight-ticket voting.

    But, all those are factors that may be unique to this area, and need to be thought through.

    1. Republicans are suffering in the suburbs under Trump, for sure.

      But thats a symptom of a larger problem: look at large urban areas, they are run by Dems. Baltimore and Chicago (as examples) have endless crime and corruption, deficits, waste, bad schools… and yet Republicans cannot seem to sell the idea that “peak big government” has been reached and we need to roll back govt and make it more effective. Baltimore cannot even collect water bills or tax bills. But surely we need the govt to do more! Public Sector unions effectively control large urban govt, and run these cities into the ground. Voters do not seem to mind and keep voting for the New Boss Same as the Old Boss.

      If Republicans cannot make gains in areas so poorly run like Chicago, Philly, or Baltimore, really shame on them.

      1. “If Republicans cannot make gains in areas so poorly run like Chicago, Philly, or Baltimore, really shame on them.”

        I think their problem is they don’t have any sterling examples to point to, where cutting back big government has resulted in a tangible improvement in the quality of life for the working people. What they need is one demonstration project that is so successful it attracts people voting with their feet. Meanwhile, if anything, the flow of population still appears to be to the Chicagos, Phillies, and Baltimores.

        I personally am surprised that in states like Pennsylvania, there isn’t a flow of retired people from the Pittsburghs and Phillies to the rural counties, where it’s cheaper to live, and practical if you no longer need to earn a living. But that does not seem to be the case, and instead the rural counties are still losing population.

        1. Form the boomers I have spoken to they simply don’t want to move from the city they have know for 40 or 50 years to a place with no family or freinds.

          A lot if them don’t know if they could sell their houses anyway.

        2. Retired people dont move from Pittsburgh to rural areas (well sometimes they do), mostly they move to Florida where the taxes are low, there is more sun, and PENNDOT is not destroying your car with layers of brine.

  4. Pingback: SayUncle » Snooze
  5. People get all nervous when someone like him gets into the race because they buy the BS that its easy to “buy” an election.

    Here in Colorado, Mikey outspent the efforts to recall some anti-gun state Senators a few years back by 8-1 … and lost bigly.

    1. “the BS that its easy to “buy” an election.”

      I lean toward agreeing it’s BS, but not with absolute confidence. What I mean is, the old idea of campaign spending consisting mainly of big TV ad buys may be outdated, and supplanted with other kinds of “communication”, including online and social media. But then, it still takes a lot of money to do even that professionally, and I’m sure there is a lot of “covert” spending we have yet to recognize.

      So I’m not saying the ability to spend is no factor, just that I don’t think it’s as big a factor as it once was.

      There also is the factor of, how much campaign spending can be offset by the media providing essentially free campaign support. In some cases they do it deliberately, in other cases they are tricked into it by a clever candidate.

      1. I have the impression, both then and now, is that money matters most when the candidates are close to each other in terms of policy, or no one really cares about a particular issue being considered.

        When you get a polarizing figure running for office, or a polarizing issue, however, the unpopular candidate/issue could outspend the popular candidate/issue 20 to 1, and the unpopular issue will *still* win (even if it’s sometimes a struggle to do so).

        So, money *can* buy elections, but would Bloomberg be able to buy the Presidency? I’m not as confident. He’ll be running against President Trump, who’s now a known (and now well-funded) entity; President Trump has the advantage of incumbancy, and Bloomberg has the disadvantage that a lot of people know who he is, and already don’t like him….

        1. Only because you’ve reminded me of the subject:

          Here in PA we had a constitutional change question on the November ballot, to enable so-called “Victims Rights” legislation. It sounded like God and Motherhood, and Pennsylvanians seem to vote for any constitutional change that comes along, anyway. Nevertheless there was a HUGE “Vote Yes” campaign, including TV ads featuring Kelsey Grammer, and robocalls with the same Kelsey Grammer endorsement.

          Personally, I figured anything with that much money and resources rooting for it couldn’t possibly be on the level, so I voted “no.” Not that it made any difference, because it passed ~75-25, but I’m still wondering what the real story was. (The last I knew a court had put a stay on it, even before election day, but I haven’t seen or looked for any follow-up reports about its status.)

          There was no “Vote No” campaign whatsoever, that I could detect.

          I guess my point is, there are ~25 percent of us that are put off by obvious heavy campaign spending.

          1. They went through some effort to conceal there’s one wealthy patron behind it… the founder of Broadcom. He’s worth about 3.6 billion. His sister was Marcy.

            As a general rule, I’ll vote against any law named after someone. They are almost always a bad idea wrapped in a guilt trip.

            1. Thanks. I did not know that.

              I’m thinking that they would have been better off admitting there was a moneybags behind it, campaigning for personal/emotional/family reasons, than concealing it. Seeing a big, expensive “Vote Yes” effort with no countering resistance, caused more than one of us to smell a rat.

              (I believe the ACLU opposed it in court [?] but not very vigorously in public.)

          2. I have come to distrust the Initiative process for exactly this reason. While proponents claim “More Democracy” and thus imply it’s an unfettered good, more often than not, it’s merely a way for rich people to manipulate the laws. Sometimes they aren’t successful, but more often than not, they are.

            1. “it’s merely a way for rich people to manipulate the laws.”

              Unlike what they do using their bought-and-paid-for legislators.

  6. It’s not so much if he loses. He already loses. What does he do next to screw Biden and the Dems? Run as a good ole fashioned bonafide IN-DEE-pendent? Trump is taking the Dem drama to the bank!

Comments are closed.