Mike Bloomberg to double ad spending following Iowa Caucus disaster

[gabeoz 7,915]

29 minutes ago, Gov Hooka said:

He's absolute trash and the people that work for his campaign sold their souls

Say what you want but I would want to work on his campaign too. Good wages, contracts lasting until the election (he intends to use his campaign resources/man power towards the nominee if he doesn’t get it) plus free iPhones, etc. 

[Othon 34,299]

Just now, DiscoHeaven23 said:

I'm confused by this though. Bloomberg isn't as left as Bernie. He's more where Biden and Klobuchar are. So wouldn't he be taking votes from them?

Yes, but he's trying to gain enough delegates in these upcoming primary states to prevent Bernie from achieving a plurality of them going into the convention, which would prevent him from winning outright on the first ballot (despite having the most support by far) and would trigger a second round of voting that would include superdelegates (party insiders) and could throw the election to another candidate. 

It could certainly backfire for the reason you just gave, but if a "Stop Sanders" movement coalesces around Bloomberg after Super Tuesday, it could be a real problem for Bernie.

[Buddy 5,686]

36 minutes ago, Florin said:

Good for him. But if after Super Tuesday, the moderates dont remain with only one candidate, Bernie will win no matter how much money he puts into ads.

Good for him? Lmao

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

3 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Yes, but he's trying to gain enough delegates in these upcoming primary states to prevent Bernie from achieving a plurality of them going into the convention, which would prevent him from winning outright on the first ballot (despite having the most support by far) and would trigger a second round of voting that would include superdelegates (party insiders) and could throw the election to another candidate. 

It could certainly backfire for the reason you just gave, but if a "Stop Sanders" movement coalesces around Bloomberg after Super Tuesday, it could be a real problem for Bernie.

 

Interesting. Thanks for elaborating

[Bt1 5,213]

4 minutes ago, Buddy said:

Good for him? Lmao

Yea. Good for him. He has the money. If he wins, no one will knock on his door asking him for favors for the donations.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

44 minutes ago, Florin said:

Until money dont get completely  out of politics, DNC shouldn't change the rules, especially during an election circle. Let's not make rules that the Republicans dont need to respect.

Also, I dont get this "buying votes" narrative. There are other people in this race who promised free money monthly if they win. 

I don't know what you're saying here...

1)The DNC made a rule that said you must have this many donors and this much polling support to qualify for the debates. Several candidates tried to make the case that they should be on the debate stage because their rules weren't fair. They stated very publicly that they would not change their rules for anyone.

2) Michael Bloomberg has given them hundreds of thousands of $s and has said he would spend $1 billion on the race.

3) They announce they will change their rules to let him debate.

Are you just saying that this is okay? Buying ads and letting that be your campaign means you dont actually have to know any people, have a public profile, do any of the ground work that is meant to convince voters. If Michael Bloomberg spends $200 million in ads (which he has) in just a short amount of time, even buying a superbowl ad, then voters will not have any chance of getting to know who he is as a candidate beyond what he claims. There is no pushback, and thus he is able to grow support unopposed.

Now that he has that support, he wants to debate, and unless this debate is supposed to be a 2 hour referendum on Michael Bloomberg, he will likely be able to avoid any major criticism, bringing up his INCREDIBLE laundry list of issues in his record, his past as a Republican, and only promote a positive vision. Black voters should know that he helped implement and push for stop and frisk which promoted racial profiling of black and brown people, women voters deserve to know that he has said incredibly disparaging things about women and even has multiple Non Disclosure Agreements over sexual harassment suits, Democrats deserve to know that he has shifted his major policy beliefs back and forth over his life when he has run as Republican vs Democrat that just fit the party at the time It is inauthentic, and he is buying success and clout through excessive advertisement. 

And... Idk if I should even go this with you, but there's a big difference between proposing a universal basic income, a concept that is at least a century old but probably older, as a means of economic security and trying to "buy votes"

If that is your logic, then Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are also trying to buy votes by offering economic proposals that would help people, financially or otherwise   This isn't the same as spending vast amounts of money for support unopposed, and influencing the establishment to bend to your will itself - that is buying the Democratic Party itself.

[farting 629]

Buy me daddy

[Bt1 5,213]

7 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I don't know what you're saying here...

1)The DNC made a rule that said you must have this many donors and this much polling support to qualify for the debates. Several candidates tried to make the case that they should be on the debate stage because their rules weren't fair. They stated very publicly that they would not change their rules for anyone.

2) Michael Bloomberg has given them hundreds of thousands of $s and has said he would spend $1 billion on the race.

3) They announce they will change their rules to let him debate.

Are you just saying that this is okay? Buying ads and letting that be your campaign means you dont actually have to know any people, have a public profile, do any of the ground work that is meant to convince voters. If Michael Bloomberg spends $200 million in ads (which he has) in just a short amount of time, even buying a superbowl ad, then voters will not have any chance of getting to know who he is as a candidate beyond what he claims. There is no pushback, and thus he is able to grow support unopposed.

Now that he has that support, he wants to debate, and unless this debate is supposed to be a 2 hour referendum on Michael Bloomberg, he will likely be able to avoid any major criticism, bringing up his INCREDIBLE laundry list of issues in his record, his past as a Republican, and only promote a positive vision. Black voters should know that he helped implement and push for stop and frisk which promoted racial profiling of black and brown people, women voters deserve to know that he has said incredibly disparaging things about women and even has multiple Non Disclosure Agreements over sexual harassment suits, Democrats deserve to know that he has shifted his major policy beliefs back and forth over his life when he has run as Republican vs Democrat that just fit the party at the time It is inauthentic, and he is buying success and clout through excessive advertisement. 

And... Idk if I should even go this with you, but there's a big difference between proposing a universal basic income, a concept that is at least a century old but probably older, as a means of economic security and trying to "buy votes"

If that is your logic, then Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are also trying to buy votes by offering economic proposals that would help people, financially or otherwise   This isn't the same as spending vast amounts of money for support unopposed, and influencing the establishment to bend to your will itself - that is buying the Democratic Party itself.

Ok. Why do you like so much to go off topic? 

anyway, now I understand what you were saying about DNC. It is debatable if this was wrong or not. U let the impression that u want him to be on the debate stage, so that people could ask him questions. That means that DNC made the right move?

However, what I found with a simple google is that it isnt so sure that Bloomberg wanted this change. It seems that it would have been really easy to get that minimum number of donors and control how to spend that money. He didnt want it. And its unclear if he will get on the debate stage, even with this change.

It's a strange situation. Dont know what to say. I can see why they did it, but still kinda strange. Has any other candidate raised questions about this move? 

[OBEY 57,109]

Sorry @Morphine Prince can you explain a bit what's happening with the iowa caucus? im not from the US but I've heard stuff about polls not getting revealed or something? if you have an article that explains it I'd like it or if you have time and will u can answer me  

[Morphine Prince 110,110]

Pete Buttigieg currently winning by 1.8% with delegates but Sanders is winning the popular vote with 62% reporting. 

[Morphine Prince 110,110]

19 minutes ago, OBEY said:

Sorry @Morphine Prince can you explain a bit what's happening with the iowa caucus? im not from the US but I've heard stuff about polls not getting revealed or something? if you have an article that explains it I'd like it or if you have time and will u can answer me  

Basically the results are delayed because of a technical problem with an app they were using to get reports. It's a mess. 

[Morphine Prince 110,110]

Follow live results here: https://features.desmoinesregister.com/news/politics/iowa-caucuses-results-alignment/

 

[Morphine Prince 110,110]

Omg not me messing up posting Iowa results here cause I thought you had tagged me in the Iowa thread  

@OBEY