Do people not think it's bad that being a billionaire yields a path to political power

[DanTex]

that's not available to normal people? Just as a matter of principle, isn't it repulsive?

I mean, an average person who might be kinder and smarter and more moral and all that than a billionaire has almost no chance of becoming president (or senator or governor). They have to start out by building a base of support, and get signatures and volunteers and donations and all that.

But just by virtue of having money, a mega-billionaire who is willing spend a small fraction of their wealth that they will never miss will have something like, what, a 5 to 10 percent chance. Just by hiring a bunch of people and playing ads all over the place.

How is this not oligarchy in action? How is this a good way for things to be?

Yes, I'll vote for Bloomberg against Trump, if he's the nominee, obviously. But come on, the whole thing is maddening.

[George II]

1. No they don't.

[dchill]

2. I KNOW it is.

[msongs]

3. one prominent dems prez candidate recently raked in $40mil, is that not a bad thing? nt

[Garrett78]

12. Donations are a sign of support. Buying support because you can afford airtime...

...is a whole different story.

In other words, it's one thing to use support to afford the ability to go on campaigning. It's another thing to buy airtime in order to do just well enough in polls in order to justify continuing to campaign. Bloomberg is simply purchasing viability.

[RandySF]

4. I'll say this about Bloomberg

He can’t be bought off by any Russians. He’s too expensive.

[keithbvadu2]

5. Billionaire says: T-r-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-s-t me...

Billionaire says: T-r-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-s-t me...

[redqueen]

16. I'm so stealing that

[RestoreAmerica2020]

32. Wish that came with audio using Sam Elliot's distinctive voice.

[RockRaven]

6. Apparently not, but history teaches us that it rarely turns out well for the masses.

Ask all those rank and file Roman soldiers who accompanied Crassus east to fight the Parthians...

[Generic Brad]

7. It sucks

But what you gonna do?

[DanTex]

8. My plan is to complain about it on the internet...

[Generic Brad]

9. Good plan!

Proceed.

[FoxNewsSucks]

10. I don't want any more "billionaires"

but at least Steyer played by the rules.

My understanding is that the DNC changed the rules to make sure Bloomberg gets in the next debate.

[highplainsdem]

11. No. Link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-campaign-ads.html

Mr. Bloomberg hopscotched through California on Monday, trying to rally supporters on the same day early voting began in the delegate-rich state. He began his day in a Sacramento coffee shop, stopped at Fresno City College and ended at a community center in Compton.

Many of those in the crowds said they were undecided, but were drawn to Mr. Bloomberg because they believed his fortune would give Democrats the best chance to beat President Trump in the fall.

[delisen]

13. Of course it is an example of gross inequality

But we were not able to prevent the inequality.

If we take the executive branch and increase our numbers in all other offices we stand a chance of solving our inequality problem.
We have a tough battle ahead because the Senate and the courts have been corrupted.

Bloomberg is helping us whether or not he is the candidate.His money may help him win and if not it will help another of our candidates win.

We then have a better base from which to fight than we have now. We are at the beginning of a long struggle.
We can build a much fairer society.

[stonecutter357]

14. Cool Story, Bro , !

[mr_lebowski]

15. It is a frustrating reality, yes indeedy. But I will say this ... at least he's held office ...

Unlike the shitstain in office right now, who constitutes a far worse example of the phenomenon.

If one was to argue he's not qualified one would surely have to say the same about Mayor Pete. To be clear, I think they both are qualified enough for the job.

So there's that, I guess.

[Kentonio]

17. Not only that

But a billionaire who can just ignore little things like debates and early primaries, because he can apparently just make up the difference by buying endless TV slots instead of actually engaging with the party.

[LanternWaste]

18. Millionaires as well. Maddening indeed.

(I get it... that wouldn't support your narrative too well, so you're forced to draw an arbitrary line at millions excluding Sanders from your own criticism. That would certainly have been awkward... )

[wiley]

27. You noticed that too?

Remember when pre-millionaire Bernie always criticised millionaires in his speeches?

[jmg257]

19. Yep money is a HUGE advantage...go figure. Make it before, or make during & after.

Welcome to America!! (and most other places)

It is frustrating, but it what it is.

[treestar]

20. If he were a Republican, he'd be putting the money

into Dotard's campaign instead of wasting it on a hopeless cause for himself.

[Shrek]

21. It doesn't bother me

Ultimately you still have to get the votes.

If a voter finds the ads more persuasive than traditional politicking, who am I to declare that it's unacceptable?

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

22. I am a little confused.

You said –

I mean, an average person who might be kinder and smarter and more moral and all that than a billionaire has almost no chance of becoming president (or senator or governor). They have to start out by building a base of support, and get signatures and volunteers and donations and all that.

Isn’t this the process 99.999% of the elected official in US politics have had to go through since the birth of the Republic? There have been the occasional wealthy person that can self-finance their whole campaign, but they are rare. Even the current president did not self-finance his general campaign.

Does money give an advantage? Certainly. So does a good resume or compelling charisma. I am not saying that money alone should be sufficient to grant a person the office. But I don’t think being wealthy should preclude a person from running.

I do think interesting that the ultra-wealthy, who have always had a significant influence behind the scenes in American government are now stepping forward to run for office themselves rather than just supporting others they can then influence. Though this is not entirely new. In the last century examples of ultra-wealthy (billionaires in today’s dollars) politicians include John F. Kennedy and Nelson Rockefeller.

Still the Billionaire candidate is not something I am entirely comfortable with.

[Hortensis]

23. Of course we do, DanTex. But one thing should comfort you

about Bloomberg. He's someone who might be called a centrist without it being the usual profoundly dishonest smear.

And since you apparently consider Sanders centrist -- as someone whose voted overwhelmingly for the past 30 years with the Democratic caucus you call centrist, you presumably don't find that much difference between Sanders and Bloomberg.

Bloomberg's not nearly as liberal as I am, but my biggest objection is to the 14-20th wealthiest man on the planet using his money to bore his name into voter brains. Of course, I also intensely object to mind-fucking from ANY candidate by ANY means...

Btw, has Sanders finally used his massive social media machine to clear up the national confusion he's inadvertently been spreading about what his Democratic socialism really is?

[Fresh_Start]

24. Nope

better self-financed than lying about what you are going to do if elected in order to get elected...with no track record or feasible possibility to support it

[denem]

25. Yes I do, but this is war.

The city is ablaze. I'll take any fire truck at hand.

[wiley]

26. No. I don't.

With Bloomberg, Steyer or Yang. Or anyone else for that matter. It's not maddening at all.

[cilla4progress]

28. I hate it.

It's bullshit and wrong.

Sadly, it may be the only way for now....

[MineralMan]

29. It is people who will decide that question, in fact.

Mike Bloomberg is running for the Democratic nomination for President. People will vote for him or for another candidate. There are many candidates in 2020, which is too bad, in a way.

So, the people who vote in their states' primary elections will decide whether it's a bad thing or a good thing. That's our system. You get one vote, just as I do. That seems fair.

[MineralMan]

30. You wrote:

"I mean, an average person who might be kinder and smarter and more moral and all that than a billionaire has almost no chance of becoming president (or senator or governor). "

I give you Jimmy Carter.

[Politicub]

31. It's what billionaires do with their money that counts.

Bloomberg is taking on Trump and funding democrats down ballot. Like Steyer, he is putting his fortune to good use.

There is something about him that people are latching onto, too. I think we need to pay attention to his message and why it is resonating and who it is affecting the most.