Bloomberg's playbook to buy the election

[Qutzupalotl]

Last edited Fri Feb 14, 2020, 12:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Thread by @blakezeff:

The degree to which Michael Bloomberg is using his fortune to fundamentally alter & manipulate U.S. politics to his personal advantage extends way beyond ads. I've worked against him, covered him as a journalist & worked with his top aides. Here’s their playbook: (1/17)

Let’s start with endorsements. Background: Bloomberg was a GOP mayor & Rudy Giuliani ally, whose police stopped innocent black men so often his tactics were ruled unconstitutional. So how did he possibly get key Democratic endorsements in NYC? Here’s one way 👇 2/17

But come on, it’s not like he can do that in *this* campaign. Sure he’s compiling a ton of random endorsements nationwide despite merely being a former mayor. But that’s because they loved his soda ban. Or his speaking style. Or...👇 3/17

Link to tweet

In 2018, Mike spent $110 million to boost 24 candidates now in Congress. Turns out, giving people $2 million can be the start of a beautiful friendship. Then there are mayors: Want a grant from Bloomberg for new programs in your city...? 4/17

You may also see “community groups” back Mike's candidacy. As mayor, non-profits supported him when he reversed a voter referendum on term limits & made a backroom deal to help himself get a 3rd term. How’d that happen, you ask? He applied himself.👇 5/17

You may also see fewer critics bash Mike's candidacy than you’d expect. After changing parties from GOP to Independent in 2007 as mayor, the local GOP rarely attacked anything he did. How'd he pull that off? I’ll give you a million guesses... 6/17

Forget endorsements: This campaign has grassroots support! Mike held events in various states recently & got huge crowds. They were clearly inspired by that “Mike Will Get It Done” energy. But *this* probably didn’t hurt, either...👇 7/17

Link to tweet

Then there’s staff. Mike poaches talent away from other campaigns, by giving folks huge salaries & perks (catered meals, etc). His money also lets him hire more staff than all his opponents combined, while grassroots campaigns have to run on $18 checks from G’ma Millie. 8/17

Mike's wealth even affects his rivals’ fundraising. Using his relationships with other rich donors, he’s personally asking them to sit the election out, so his rivals can't raise cash. Because having $61b to spend, versus $20mil for the other Dems, is too close for comfort 9/17

This one I’ll just leave here. (10/17)

Link to tweet

OK, let’s discuss the non-stop ads. Saturating the airwaves gives you the huge advantage of never needing media coverage - which means rarely having to submit to interviews or scrutiny. If they want, they can make sure this👇 never happens again 11/17

Let’s be honest: Ads also enable Mike to mislead voters without being corrected. One ad portrays him as Obama’s BFF, even though Mike didn’t back him in '08 & barely did in '12, when he scolded Obama for being partisan, divisive & populist. But few will see this pushback👇 12/17

The issue’s not just that Mike’s ads help him “get his story out more.” It’s that they enable him to *craft* whatever story he wants, blast it to every voter 1000 times, & bypass the media. And if the story takes creative licenses, oh well. How will viewers ever find out? 13/17

One reason it all works so well is that Mike & the team he was able to acquire, are smart. Other rich candidates have failed. But Mike's team has a combo that's rare - maybe even unprecedented - in U.S. politics: unlimited money, elite intelligence & Machiavellian ethics. 14/17

For example, they know Mike has real vulnerabilities in the primary on issues & his GOP past. But they also know Dems hate Trump. So, that’s where the campaign turns all its focus. This achieves several things. First, makes him seem “above” the internal primary bickering. 15/17

Also: Positions him as a general election candidate now, evades discussion of Dem primary issues where his record is toxic, & presents one of biggest GOP donors ever (Mike) as a loyal Dem who just wants to see Trump (his old golf pal) lose. So far, voters are lapping it up. 16/17

3 months ago, polls found Mike Bloomberg “widely disliked” with the highest negatives in the race. Now he’s a top 3 contender for the Democratic nomination. One of the richest humans ever is trying to upend every part of the process. And this is just the stuff we know about. /END

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1227976156936171520.html

[Zolorp]

1. TL;DR

[Qutzupalotl]

11. Shorter version:

Using his relationships with other rich donors, he’s personally asking them to sit the election out, so his rivals can't raise cash.

[Amishman]

25. While calling in favors from previous large donations

This is how an election is bought and democracy dies

[Happy Hoosier]

2. Ya know....

People actually have to vote for him.

[at140]

3. Bloomberg is opposite of what I dream about!

My dream is all elections (at least federal) be funded strictly by the US Treasury, in equal amounts to candidates who meet qualifications. And the campaign period be limited to 3 months instead of the over year long campaigns.

This will take all the lobbyist corruption out of DC. I think UK has short campaigns.
Our candidates spend way too much time campaigning instead of doing the work for Americans.

Billionaires should have no advantage over an ordinary prosecutor or a mayor in a small town.
I have nothing against Bloomberg except he is opposite of my dream.

[brooklynite]

14. "...to candidates who meet qualifications"

There are approximately 250 Democratic candidates for President who have filed with the FEC. How do you decide who are rhe "real ones"?

[at140]

18. That is the $64,000 question

Like DNC has minimum requirements to appear on debate stage,
something similar would have to be incorporated.

[brooklynite]

19. DNC's debate requirements have regularly been claimed to be arbitrary...

...by anyone who didn't meet them.

[at140]

35. LOL good one!

[TwilightZone]

26. I think roughly 0.1% of people are aware of that.

That might be high.

I look at the list every election cycle because I think it's interesting and there's always a bunch of goofballs who run, but I think hardly anyone knows that there are hundreds of candidates pretty much every cycle.

"Everyone should get to debate" becomes a logistical impossibility, of course.

[demosincebirth]

4. Better him than BS

[emmaverybo]

7. BS does not buy support to sustain power. We do not need to compromise our values to beat

Trump. Bloomberg might have problems in swing states despite his vast resources and political
sophistication. Once we go down this path, we own the Faustian bargain we may have made. We will be the party of Bloomberg, Stop and Frisk and all.

Let us know and consider that all before we rush where angels fear to tread.

There’s quite a bit Sanders would not do, has not done, and is constitutionally incapable of.

[Bradshaw3]

9. Very well said

We do not need a Democratic version of drumpf. I'm just amazed at how many on here are quickly lapping up Bloomberg's (current) schtick. I guess all it takes for some is a few ads that make them feel good and they shut down any talk of his very obvious flaws and cling to polling that gives him only a slightly better chance of beating drumpf than the others. Really makes one wonder.

[MBS]

24. I've also been shocked that any informed Democrat would buy his @#$%. n/t

[Bradshaw3]

31. Me too but hey he has nice ads

I think that's as deep as it goes for some. Maybe that and wanting a savior to come save us when we need to be doing it ourselves.

[kcr]

21. Oh, no. Not only no, but hell no.

If there's one thing this Bloomberg surge has done for me, it has turned me off my once fervent anti-Bernie stance. Bloomberg cannot happen. He is a smarter, richer Trump. He saw how Trump was able to bamboozle and con his way into POTUS, and he's trying his own version on the Dem side. And it looks like it's actually starting to work, using our anti-Trump energy against us. I hope we aren't foolish enough to buy it. It will be a disaster to nominate one racist, authoritarian billionaire con to try to oust the other.

[MBS]

23. + 100 n/t

[Cal Carpenter]

33. Well put

This sub-thread makes me happy because supporters of almost all the other candidates are agreeing on Bloomberg. I am just horrified at the amount of traction Bloomberg is getting within the party. And he has certainly made me more comfortable with the thought of some of the other candidates, the way he's done for you with Bernie. So in a weird way, Bloomberg's bringing us all together, lol!

[Azathoth]

5. Every successful candidate "buys" the race

Obama's fundraising and spending were record-setting. An no, not all that came in $2 donations from factory workers.

Lots of Hillary's endorsements came from people she had raised a lot of money for. That's also part of the game.

And the argument that Bloomberg is not only filthy rich, but using his wealth to acquire an "elitely intelligent" and capable team, actually makes me want to support him. I'm tired of Dem incompetence (Iowa, the Obamacare rollout, etc.) Republicans don't even pretend to govern competently, but they sure as hell seize power competently. A leader is not an expert in all subjects. Rather, a leader knows how to assemble a first rate team and set them to turning out their best work. Dems sorely need some of that, at least when it comes to getting elected and consolidating power.

I'm not switching my vote to Bloomberg. But I won't shed tear if he's my nominee this November.

[Bradshaw3]

10. You clearly missed the point

Every successful candidate doesn't "buy the race". The electoral landscape is littered with the political corpses of those who raised millions and didn't win. Obama won in large part because he had a large and committed grassroots movement behind him and because he promised a change that people badly wanted. He also happened to be a great public speaker and had charisma, things Bloomberg lacks.

Elections don't happen in a vacuum. There are many other factors other than money. But people on here seem to believe that Bloomberg's wealth means he can buy the election in November. It might get him the nomination but nominating him will cost us large swathes that would vote Democratic. It would be taking a huge chance and thinking money guarantees victory in November is delusional.

Lastly, comparing his strategy to other candidates like Hillary is disengenuous. He is NOT "raising money" for other elected officials. He has been using program grants and his own money to gain personal power (things like changing the law so he could run for mayor a third time). It's an old strategy used by kings and strongmen just dressed up in nicer clothing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/us/politics/bloomberg-mayors-2020.html

That's buying power and that is the last thing we need from our nominee.

[Azathoth]

13. What Bloomberg is doing is grotesquely exaggerated, but it's no different

Candidates who aren't already national celebrities get elected by first forming a small core group of supporters and donors, then raising lots of money to advertise and boost their profile. It's just the way our elections work.

Of course the landscape is littered with failed candidates who spent millions and lost, because *every* competitive candidate spends millions. Obviously, there are other factors that help push a candidate over the top. But there are another set of bodies, though, that lie under that first layer of corpses. Those are the handful of idealistic fools who thought they could win based on (real or imagined) grassroots enthusiasm without spending lots of money. No one even remembers them.

So no, I'm not missing the point. Obama would not have been elected if he hadn't spent tons of money. The question of grassroots support vs advertising is a chicken or the egg situation: it's often hard to tell how many people get behind a candidate before/in spite of their spending, or because of it. (And I don't mean they necessarily were persuaded by tv commercials. Often, big spending gives a candidate credibility with potential voters who are looking for someone with the ammo to win.)

Again, I'm not advocating that anyone vote for Bloomberg right now. But the idea that he's not normal because he's buying his way in just doesn't acknowledge the reality of our political system.

[Bradshaw3]

32. Still wrong

The money is NOT what got Obama elected. Sure it takes money to compete but if a candidate doesn't have the support money doesn't matter. It isn't chicken or the egg; you have to have a reason, be a good candidate and the time has to be right. Money won't overcome those failures Obama had all of those from the start and not because of money.

The way Bloomberg is doing it is not normal. Astro-turfing events, huge ad buys, buying influence through donations, while avoiding interviews is a totally top-down campaign which is geared to avoid scrutiny and accountability. You can claim it's always been that way but it hasn't.

[calguy]

6. He can't buy the election

All he can buy is attention. He has spent well and has bought plenty of attention. Going forward he can't buy too much more attention. He has plenty. Now he has to convince people to vote forqhim. People give him votes,, they don't sell their votes to him. He has to earn it from here on out. Let's let it play out.

[Mike 03]

16. I agree with your post.

At least Bloomberg isn't gathering college students into an arena and saying "vote for me, I can make your tuition and your student debt go away" when he knows deep down he can't, because if Bloomberg did that it would be deceptive.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. He does spread his money to buy support.

This is unacceptable. He's a swamp thing, onto himself.

[Garrett78]

12. Bloombers has been bribing people for decades. And he's both a racist and misogynist.

But, hey, he can beat Trump...except that he can't. He would get crushed. Overall turnout would suck. 3rd party voting would be up. Disenchantment with the status quo and US political system, already off the charts, would destroy our party for a generation.

[MBS]

22. I agree - there is no way he could win the GE.

The Democratic Party would have sold its soul for nothing.

[Garrett78]

29. There are actually people on this site who think...

...denying Sanders the nomination if he has a plurality of delegates and nominating Bloomberg are good ideas. It's complete and utter madness.

[MBS]

30. I agree 1000%!

"Madness" is the descriptor I come up with daily.

[ConorDem]

15. Test for the soul of the Democratic Party.

Give into the temptation of big money and nominate a rich Republican to beat the other rich Republican. Bloomberg is better than Trump but hes my last choice of all the candidates.

[BeckyDem]

17. Why Is Bloomberg's Long History of Egregious Sexism Getting a Pass?

The surging Democratic presidential candidate and Bloomberg LP have fielded nearly 40 sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuits over decades.

By Laura Bassett
February 13, 2020
Mike Bloomberg with antiwoman sign collaged on top of his image

In December 2015, employees at Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun control organization funded by Mike Bloomberg, arrived at work to find a holiday gift on their desks from their employer: the former mayor’s 1997 autobiography, Bloomberg by Bloomberg. Flipping through the book, staffers found themselves uncomfortably reading their billionaire founder’s boasts about keeping “a girlfriend in every city” and other womanizing exploits as a Wall Street up-and-comer.

“A few people started immediately going through it and sending the cringe-iest parts around on email chains,” one former Everytown employee told me. “Hardly the most controversial things he’s said, but it’s still a bad look.”

Indeed, Bloomberg’s casual boasts about his sex life in his own autobiography are now some of the least problematic parts of the his candidacy for president. In recent days, the former New York City mayor’s track record on race is undergoing renewed scrutiny: Bloomberg oversaw and expanded the racist and unconstitutional “stop and frisk” program, and a newly unearthed video shows him blaming the end of a racially discriminatory housing practice known as “redlining” for the 2008 economic recession. But it takes a telling amount of gall and cluelessness to gift a book with anecdotes about your own womanizing to employees at your gun safety non-profit in the year 2015, especially for a politician with presidential ambitions who has been vigorously denying allegations of misogyny throughout his entire career—including nearly 40 sex discrimination and sexual harassment lawsuits brought against him and his organizations by 64 women over the past several decades.

https://www.gq.com/story/bloomberg-sexism

[Demsrule86]

20. This guy is a Salon writer...I listen to nothing he says or writes...Salon is dead to me.

[evertonfc]

27. class envy

campaign continues. You don't buy an election. You run ads. People vote. Get ready, Trump will run plenty.

[Newest Reality]

28. You know,

You know, something I really resent is another outcome of Trump's toxic game show and that is that we are being put into another, "between a rock and a hard place" position. That seems one way to forestall or prevent progressive and liberal advances, to say the least. When it is about having to pick this because that is so bad, (lesser of two evils?) we are, in a sense, being made subject to manipulation and being diminished by that in itself.

It seems that that is what Bloomberg realizes and jumping in late in the game and spending money on ads, (to appease us maybe more than oppose Trump, Trump has about a billion-dollars behind his campaign). That's opportunism. He can make it work his way with his strategy and I don't think he is being altruistic here.

I have a maxim: Oligarchy and theocracy are in direct opposition and inimical to democracy and neither is compatible with it, but they are opposing forces and could even work together to destroy it out of self-interest.

We are under siege as far as democracy goes. However, democracy is not, to me, some abstract ideology that is out there somewhere and that we have to go get. I remind you all that WE ARE democracy. It is us, we are it. If we can hold onto that fact then there should be no confusion about what we are doing and have to do or who is for it or against it. We have to focus our telescopes until the truth of it is clear and then act accordingly. These are the times that try our commitment to our collective, secular, inclusive understanding of truth, liberty, freedom and equality. Don't forget what it is all about.

It only makes sense to carefully investigate and vet Bloomberg because it is vital to be sensitive to any attempt at rule by oligarchs and potential demagogues. If Bloomberg wants to address issues like that when we present them, fine, but I will remain highly suspicious because I am not going to be "bought" even under dire circumstances we are in, even if I have to conceded to voting for a nominee who does not truly represent the interests of We The People, which this is all about. I would do so under protest, in that case.

Yes, vote for whomever is the democratic nominee, but how compromising are things going to get in this game? I feel like I have to be complicit more than I am making a good choice for the very future of this country and the survival of our democracy which is most certainly at stake here.

[BusyBeingBest]

34. Let the guy debate and judge him from that, is my way of thinking.

If he gaffes it up or comes off badly, all this hand-wringing is for naught.