March 4, 2020

"Michael Bloomberg Quits Democratic Race, Ending a Brief and Costly Bid."

"He had staked his candidacy on doing well on Super Tuesday, spending more than half a billion dollars on advertising alone."

The NYT reports.

ADDED: It's a long article. They were ready for this one in advance. Excerpt:
In an unprecedented effort to self-finance a presidential campaign — which some rivals derided as an attempt to buy the White House — Mr. Bloomberg’s bid cost him more than half a billion dollars in advertising alone. He also spent lavishly on robust on-the-ground operations, with more than 200 field offices across the country and thousands of paid staff. His operation dwarfed those of Democratic rivals who ultimately won states in which he had installed many dozens of employees and spent heavily on radio, television and direct mail ads....

He was irked by repeated questions about how long he would stay in the race, and whether doing so would benefit Mr. Sanders at the expense of Mr. Biden. “Joe’s taking votes away from me,” Mr. Bloomberg said, insisting that he had no plans to drop out. “Have you asked Joe whether he’s going to drop out?”...

He had pitched himself to voters as “the un-Trump,” often describing himself as “a sane, competent person,” while acknowledging what he called “the elephant in the room” — that a Bloomberg-Trump general election would feature “two New York billionaires” who have played golf together in the past....

165 comments:

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

He can get back to purchasing our dying democratic republic by other means.

gilbar said...

just goes to show;
can't buy me love

James K said...

American Samoa is devastated.

rcocean said...

Wow, that was quick. Of course his real purpose has been accomplished. Biden is the front-runner and it looks like Bernie will lose. Next up, Warren.

Lucid-Ideas said...

From Wall Street:

"A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place."

I'm actually going to side with Antifa on this one. If they went for him first, I'd applaud.

You listening Antifa? Kill this guy. We'll let you keep the money...

Phidippus said...

So long, Mike. We hardly saw 'ya.

rcocean said...

all the people who wasted their votes yesterday on Bloomie, Amy K, Buttigi, and steyer must be devastated.

traditionalguy said...

OMG: Trump's tweets about Mini Mike pegged it all along. The President is also a political analyst without peer. On the job training works when a genius level Orange Man determines to learn how to win it.

rcocean said...

Bloomberg for Biden Treasury Secretary? Could be.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Seen on Gab

The upside is I can stop being bombarded with the c*cksucker's messaging.

mockturtle said...

Well, it's only money, after all. And it will be a great tax write-off.

Calypso Facto said...

That should be -- but won't be -- the end of anyone still railing against Citizens United ruling.

rcocean said...

Bloomberg is why we need a wealth tax. He spend $500 million, and now his net worth is 55.5 billion instead of 56 billion. He almost bought the whole thing.

Limited blogger said...

wow, 500 million doesn't buy as much as it used to?

Michael K said...

Can he continue to spend now that he has "suspended" his campaign ?

I guess we should ask Dinesh D'Sousa.

Rory said...

"Wow, that was fast."

--Sally White, Radio Days

Ken B said...

Calypso
Great point.
If FARMER is out there he should research what Bernie says about Citizens United. Bernie said the case was wrongly decided and the constitution amended to curtail the reach of the first amendment. Which is why I said Bernie is explicitly running against the first amendment.

Drago said...

It seems like only yesterday that Trump was supposedly petrified of a Bloomberg run.

Good times, good times....

traditionalguy said...

Slow Joe now has 21% more delegates than Commissar Bernie. Nice work DNC.

Wince said...

Unique for a "Democrat", Bloomberg provided Keynesian stimulus to the economy using his own money.

Clyde said...

Almost as amusing as all of the foreigners who contributed to the Clinton Foundation back in 2016 to try to buy influence. Made me think of the first cartoon at this link, with the dumpster fire. Perfect!

wendybar said...

Now we are left with Delusional Joe and the Comrades Bernie and Lizzy. (Tulsi is still there, but the Progressives don't like her)

Curious George said...

Looks like Inga will have to come up with a new "Trump is afraid of x"

Ken B said...

“ Bloomberg is why we need a wealth tax. He spend $500 million, and now his net worth is 55.5 billion instead of 56 billion. He almost bought the whole thing.”

Umm. He actually bought a dozen delegates. Somewhat short of the whole thing.

tastid212 said...

Does the campaign staff get to keep their iPads? Grab one last catered meal on the way out the door?

dbp said...

If his goal was to make sure Bernie is not the nominee, then this makes sense. At this point, all he is doing is taking votes away from Biden.

Nonapod said...

The guy has the personal charisma of a bowl of oatmeal on a debate stage. He has the instincts of a controlling autocrat with his gun grabbing and softdrink size mandate. He demonstrated tedious arrogance time and again (re: his comments about farming, his evident belief that he could just buy the election).

Good riddance.

MadisonMan said...

What will all his employed ground troops do now for food?

FullMoon said...

Great ! My record in intact. Wrong every time.

Meade said...

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
13m
Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn’t in the race, Bernie Sanders would have EASILY won Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas, not to mention various other states. Our modern day Pocahontas won’t go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go down as the all time great SPOILER!

Iowan2 said...

Bloomberg spent less* than any person ever running for President.

*as % of wealth or net worth

dbp said...

If Warren stays in, then she will be rightly vilified by the progressive left. Couldn't happen to a nicer person.

gilbar said...

i'm afraid i need some help ('cause i'm Brain Damaged)

How does this show, that Trump is terrible and pathetic?
Chuck? Igna? ARM? Anyone?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Will this kill the myth that money and campaign finance is a viable issue? Will the Citizens United harpies now admit defeat along with acknowledging that campaigns are far more about the candidate and any movement they can inspire than about how much is spent? Biden won MA without running an ad. Ditto TX. Bloombutt and Steyer burned 3/4 of a BILLION DOLLARS and won one territory atween ‘em. Maybe ideas are becoming the mothers milk of politics?

Ken B said...

Bloomberg's big accomplishment was to reveal with perfect clarity that the media takes orders. He ordered Bloomberg News not to investigate Democrats, and they didn’t. We all knew it before, but it’s always nice to have proof.

madAsHell said...

The upside is I can stop being bombarded with the c*cksucker's messaging.

No kidding!! His messaging was terrible. There were no ideas, just......"I'm not Trump."

MadisonMan said...

There were no ideas, just......"I'm not Trump."

How is that different from Biden?

Gilbert Pinfold said...

Bloomberg fondled pizza like Biden fondles hair

CJinPA said...

In an unprecedented effort to self-finance a presidential campaign — which some rivals derided as an attempt to buy the White House...

He should have said, in his best Ross Perot voice, "Yes, I'm buying the White House -- for the American people..."

Maybe not.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Yeah - we need the "Bloomberg tax"

Bernie and Biden will ONLY tax the middle and upper middle classes - keep them in line.
The Bernie-Biden-Clinton frauds have ZERO interest in taxing where their bread is buttered.

Ken B said...

“ There were no ideas, just......"I'm not Trump."

How is that different from Biden?”

Biden says “I am not the other Trump.”

Lucid-Ideas said...

In all honesty there was a piece of me that wanted to see the billionaire Jew pitted against the millionaire Jew over who was more 'socialist'.

I guess I'll have to wait a bit longer for that contest. How awesome would that be though? To see that level of kibbutzim kvetching? Put that sh*t on pay-per-view...that's a million dollar idea right there!

tim in vermont said...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha aha ha ha ha ha ha haa ... Chortlel guffaw snort, tee hee he he ha. ha ha ha ha ha.... sigh... omg, fucking jfunny... hmph... ha.. sheeit...

sinz52 said...

Bloomberg's TV and even radio ads were less effective in an era of Internet streaming and social media.

I'm one of the millions of American "cord cutters": I canceled my DirecTV subscription. I stream everything over the Internet, even in my car. I haven't watched traditional broadcast TV or listened to traditional radio in a long time.

Bob Boyd said...

I just don't understand why Bloomberg isn't winning this thing by a mile.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1234888313938546688

Skeptical Voter said...

Well Mini Mikes campaign workers supposedly had iron clad contracts for pay through November; will they get to keep the laptops they were given. "I worked on Mini Mike's campaign and all I kept was this expensive laptop?" Inquiring class action lawyers want to know.

GingerBeer said...

And very soon the Left will be demanding that Warren quit persisting.

sinz52 said...

traditionalguy: "OMG: Trump's tweets about Mini Mike pegged it all along. The President is also a political analyst without peer. "

You say Trump had him pegged.

But other Trump supporters say that Trump was encouraging Bloomberg to stay in the race to siphon off votes from Biden.

Once again, we see that to Trump supporters, Trump just can't do anything wrong, even when he does two contradictory things at the same time.

AllenS said...

Related?

DOW

26,448.16 +530.75 (2.05%)

MayBee said...

Let’s talk about how much money he spent and how much the Russians spent in 2016 and then talk about the medaling in our elections thing again.

IgnatzEsq said...

Apparently the American people don't really like a rich person who cuts in line. Who could have seen that coming?

narciso said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yancey Ward said...

There was enormous pressure on Bloomberg all weekend to drop out- you could see it in the coverage he was getting after it was clear Biden would win South Carolina easily. I think his pride is the only reasons he didn't withdraw along with Klobuchar and Buttuvwxyz- he couldn't withdraw after spending $600 million dollars before he actively contested any states. This morning was the earliest he could withdraw and throw his support to Biden, and he did.

Warren should withdraw, too, but it doesn't look like, as of this morning, that she is going to, which does clearly show the DNC has put everything it has into the "Stop Sanders" effort. I am glad the DNC has succeeded- it serves my purposes in delivering a beatable candidate for the general election, and it will antagonize Sanders' supporters since it is just transparent at this point in time.

There are only two scenarios going forward now, depending on whether or not Warren withdraws- well three:

(1) Warren withdraws in the next two days and endorses Sanders;
(2) Warren withdraws in the next two days and endorses Biden;
(3) Warren continues her campaign and contests next week's primaries.

If the first scenario occurs, then this race is definitely not over. If the second scenario occurs, it might not be over, but Biden would be in the stronger position. If the third scenario occurs, it is definitely over and Biden will win on the first ballot if he lives that long.

For the record, here are the states, and the 2016 results, that vote next week- they are much friendlier to Sanders than the states that voted last night:
..................Sanders..............Clinton
Idaho................18..................5
Michigan...........67...................63
Mississippi........5...................31
Missouri............35...................36
Washington.........74...................27
North Dakota......13....................5

Totals..............212..................167

What Sanders must have at a minimum, is Warren to drop out, and it would help him a lot if she endorsed him. With that, and now being the underdog again, Sanders has a chance, still to win the nomination outright- there will be no brokered convention- those odds should drop to close to zero by the time the California and Texas delegates are finally all distributed.

Psota said...

Not gonna miss those commercials...

Achilles said...

Trump and Bloomberg approached the election very differently.

And people keep saying Bloomberg is wealthier then Trump.

But Trump obviously had more in the bank than Bloomberg did.

There are a lot of ways to keep score.

Chuck said...

"...a Bloomberg-Trump general election would feature “two New York billionaires” who have played golf together in the past...."

Trump? A billionaire? Show me the money. Absent the actual money, show me the tax returns.

The Trump-Clinton race featured two New York millionaires whose money came from family and who would have been nothing on their own. And who socialized together in the past.

Yancey Ward said...

Psota,

Yes, Youtube's revenues are going to crater after this morning.

Gusty Winds said...

Bloomberg will now be the DNCs sugardaddy.

Achilles said...

rcocean said...

Wow, that was quick. Of course his real purpose has been accomplished. Biden is the front-runner and it looks like Bernie will lose. Next up, Warren.

Bernie would have won at least Massachusetts if Warren had dropped. There are a couple other states that are suspicious.

Warren is going to persist I am thinking.

Achilles said...

Gusty Winds said...

Bloomberg will now be the DNCs sugardaddy.

That isn't how this works.

Achilles said...

Sugar daddies get certain privileges.

JCA1 said...

I still don't understand why none of these candidates don't go hire the Russians who flipped the last election. I mean, those guys got Trump to the White House out of a basement in Russia for about $10,000. Clearly, no one has a better finger on the pulse of our country than them. It's amazing that Bloomberg and the rest of these guys spend hundreds of millions on pollsters and consultants when literally the world's best are just sitting on the sidelines eating borscht.

Darrell said...

I could have used that money.

Chuck said...

Well I am glad that I waited to cast my Michigan absentee ballot.

I could not bear to request a Democratic ballot, and so I got my standard Republican ballot. And, while I had some thoughts about switching the request last week (NeverTrump AND NeverBernie), I'm now glad that I didn't. There's nobody on the (D) ballot who I actually want to cast a vote for. Although I very much hope that Biden wins that vote.

Bill Weld.

Biden in November.

narciso said...

Bloomberg hired tim o brien, yes his advice was invaluable to winning american samoa.

Chuck said...

JCA1 said...
I still don't understand why none of these candidates don't go hire the Russians who flipped the last election. I mean, those guys got Trump to the White House out of a basement in Russia for about $10,000. Clearly, no one has a better finger on the pulse of our country than them. It's amazing that Bloomberg and the rest of these guys spend hundreds of millions on pollsters and consultants when literally the world's best are just sitting on the sidelines eating borscht.


Uh, they are already under contract. To Putin. An offer that they couldn't refuse.

MikeR said...

"some rivals derided as an attempt to buy the White House" Was there some other way to describe it?

Chuck said...

The Bloomberg ads were running heavily in Michigan. Were they in such heavy rotation all over the country? Is there anyone here who didn't see a lot of Bloomberg ads? They were fantastic. I hope to see a billion dollars' worth more, between now and November. They were nice ads about Bloomberg himself, but when they get turned on as purely, solely anti-Trump ads, I think that they may be even better.

Iowan2 said...

Trolling has become pathetic, I almost feel something, empathy? Nope. I’m still not tired of winning

Ray said...

Yancy Ward: Good analysis. I do not think Warren will support Bernie. She's in the party and won't win reelection without it. They may even run against her in the primaries. Bernie is not in the party and can win reelection without their support. Though Bernie maybe looking at Malibu Oceanfront right now.

Openidname said...

For an old guy, Bloomberg has a short memory. Ross Perot? Steve Forbes?

rhhardin said...

It just moves money from investment in stocks to the pockets of media companies, where it goes back into investment. The only actual cost is production and transmitter power.

Yancey Ward said...

Warren hurt Sanders badly last night- no two ways about it. If Warren had withdrawn after SC and endorsed Sanders, Sanders wins Maine, Massachusetts, and probably Minnesota. Additionally, he might have fought Biden to a dead draw in Texas, and picked up a net of 20-30 delegates in Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Plus, he would have won California with at least 230 of the 415 delegates. In other words, he would have won last night's delegate race by at least 100 delegates and would have been the overwhelming favorite going forward.

It is fun watching progressives stab each other in the back like this.

BillieBob Thorton said...

Guess Mini Mike just didn't measure up.

Yancey Ward said...

"I hope to see a billion dollars' worth more, between now and November. They were nice ads about Bloomberg himself, but when they get turned on as purely, solely anti-Trump ads, I think that they may be even better."

He can't run them, Chuck, without an active presidential campaign. He can, of course, try to find ways to donate that billion dollars to other Democrats, but they will run their own ads against whatever Republican candidate is their opponent.

Big Mike said...

So now Bloomie only has 55 million dollars? Poor baby!

Lance said...

$500 million, 44 delegates. So $11.4 million per delegate.

At that rate, he would spend $22.6 BILLION to garner the 1991 delegates needed to win the nomination.

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
"I hope to see a billion dollars' worth more, between now and November. They were nice ads about Bloomberg himself, but when they get turned on as purely, solely anti-Trump ads, I think that they may be even better."

He can't run them, Chuck, without an active presidential campaign. He can, of course, try to find ways to donate that billion dollars to other Democrats, but they will run their own ads against whatever Republican candidate is their opponent.


"PAID FOR THE BLOOMBERG-HATES-TRUMP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE."

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/notices-required-nonconnected-solicitations/

Lance said...

Results are still not complete, but by my tally Bloomberg garnered a total of 1,674,729 votes across all Super Tuesday states. So $300 per vote.

Etienne said...

Advertising on local television channels serves only two purposes:

1) It allows them to buy more orbiting helicopters to broadcast peasants in their environment.

2) It allows them to buy more push-up bra's and girdles for their weather tramps.

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck,

Do you really think Bloomberg can contribute unlimited money to PACs?

Curious George said...

"Big Mike said...
So now Bloomie only has 55 million dollars? Poor baby!"

No he 55,500 million dollars.

Yancey Ward said...

And if Bloomberg tries the SuperPac route, he will probably be unable to contribute to candidates or PACs because of the coordination issue alone- he would be the coordinating agent in that case.

Bloomberg will stick with contributing directly to the candidates and the PACs that support them.

Jamie said...

*************
traditionalguy: "OMG: Trump's tweets about Mini Mike pegged it all along. The President is also a political analyst without peer. "

You say Trump had him pegged.

But other Trump supporters say that Trump was encouraging Bloomberg to stay in the race to siphon off votes from Biden.

Once again, we see that to Trump supporters, Trump just can't do anything wrong, even when he does two contradictory things at the same time.

*************

sinz, perhaps you might consider looking at it this way: Trump is operating, as we all do so much of the time, with insufficient information or control to ensure a certain result. But his tweets are a cost-free, guaranteed-publicity (thank you media) way for him to affect outcomes. You know how they tell you in working on complicated math problems to try to break down the problem into its component parts and solve the parts you know how to solve? In real-world, non-math-class terms, that usually means something more like, "While you can't control everything that happens to you, you can almost always control or at least influence some things that happen to you. Work on those."

I'd consider that approach to be exactly what Trump does. Are his attempts to influence events in his favor always successful? Do they always go down exactly the way he wants them to (or would seem to want them to)? No... but he's got a pretty darn good record. And he's clearly not shy about trying the previously untried, when recent history shows that trying the previously tried, only harder (or, in the voice of his presidential predecessor, "smarter"), has been ineffective.

The danger of Trump is that these two characteristics are combined in one person: a problem-solving approach that attacks myriad small aspects individually, trying to steer them in a desired direction, and a free-wheeling approach to action. It's perfectly reasonable to me that Trump might decide to try something new that doesn't go as he wishes - that, instead, backfires. Of course, things backfire in geopolitics all the time, and Trump's "break it down and work on the parts" approach may at least limit the potential damage he could cause, in contrast to the current impassioned Leftward approach of "Burn it all down and we'll build Utopia! If not we, then who? If not now, then when?" which can destroy everything of importance.

cf. Left "strategies" to combat climate change. Inter many alia.

Drago said...

LLR-lefty and Sudden-Onset-Socialist Chuck: "The Bloomberg ads were running heavily in Michigan. Were they in such heavy rotation all over the country? Is there anyone here who didn't see a lot of Bloomberg ads? They were fantastic."

LOLOLOLOLOL

"fantastic"

In the same way obama was "magnificent", Adam Schiff was "brilliant", Rachel Maddow was "brilliant", Hack John Harwood was "professional" and Romney and McCain ran great campaigns!

You know, I do believe I'm discerning a pattern of some sort with Chuck's posts....

Drago said...

Gee, if Bloomy's ads were any more "fantastic", he could have snagged that other Samoan delegate that got away to Tulsi!

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck: ""PAID FOR THE BLOOMBERG-HATES-TRUMP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE."

LOL

Bloomberg's Millions Are Closing In!!! Trump is doomed!!! Nobody Knows What Bloomy's Ad Geniuses Know!!!

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
Chuck,

Do you really think Bloomberg can contribute unlimited money to PACs?


Pretty much, yeah.

Like the measly $10 million that he sent, in one check, to the House Majority PAC last year. (I regarded it as a little downstroke, to introduce himself to national Democrats before 2020).

He could form his own PAC. And in fact, while he'd no doubt have to report the spending, he could make all kinds of personal expenditures without forming a PAC. He wouldn't mention Biden. Wouldn't support Biden. Wouldn't do anything to coordinate with Biden.
Just attack Trump.

Chuck said...

I forgot; after his $10 million to the House Majority PAC, Bloomberg sent $20 million to the Senate Majority PAC.

Is somebody going to tell him he can't do that?

Unknown said...

So he spent all the money. Fine.

Did he also spend Bloomberg News?

Seems like everyone would be wondering on any given future story if the thumb was on the scale..

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck,

Why don't you go look at the laws regarding how that 10 million has to be spent by those committees. You seem to think the campaign finance laws have no restrictions. Also, ask yourself this- why didn't he donate 1 billion in both cases? The answer you are looking for is in the regulations, you dumb fuck.

Michael K said...

"PAID FOR THE BLOOMBERG-HATES-TRUMP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE."

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/notices-required-nonconnected-solicitations/


Does anyone still pay attention to Chuck? Bloomie endorsed Biden. I think that pretty much cancels out the anti-Trump argument.

Bay Area Guy said...

If this were a movie, it'd be "Revenge of the Fat Broads & Horse-Faced Lesbians"!

Yancey Ward said...

Basically, it comes down this- 10 million is the practical limit given the numbers of candidates the PAC itself supports with the donations. The PAC cuts the 10 million up so that it fits under all the campaign contribution limits for each candidate.

However, he won't be able to donate to these PACS and SuperPACs without running into the coordination issue, Chuck, for exactly that reason- he will have already donated to the individual candidates- it won't matter that he suddenly isn't mentioning Biden in a campaign ad from the SuperPAC.

The campaign finance laws are a joke, in my opinion, but they don't allow Bloomberg freedom to run a billion dollar anti-Trump campaign while he is supporting other Democrats directly. What they did allow was him to do this as a presidential candidate, which he no longer is.

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward; tell me in general plain English terms (or link us to literature that suggests) why Bloomberg, if he chose to, could not essentially fund, personally, campaign-season expenditures that are critical of Trump as long as he was not in any way coordinating with the Biden campaign.

Everybody is going to think of Citizens United v FEC. I am thinking more in terms of SpeechNow.org v FEC.

Yancey Ward said...

You seem to think it is easy to evade the individual contribution limits by giving to PACs- it isn't- the limits are still there, it is only that someone like Bloomberg has the money to donate to every Democrat running for any kind of federal office.

SuperPACS are different, but you can't coordinate with another campaign. However, donating to the DNC's various PACs is the coordination itself.

Bloomberg has a choice, probably already made by his own actions, to donate directly or go the SuperPAC route. Maybe, in this cycle, he hasn't committed himself yet, but I suspect he already has.

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck, if he has already donated money that the DNC will use to support Biden in the general election, then Bloomberg himself is the coordinating agent.

Now, he might be able to get away with funding a billion dollars in negative advertising that doesn't mention Trump, either, but that will be difficult to do, and probably ineffective.

Achilles said...

Chuck is very entertaining today.

The froth is real.

Even Chuck realizes Trump is going to win 40-45 states against Biden and sweep both chambers.

I think is it going to be awesome watching the republican party redistrict all those house voting districts again for the next 10 years.

eric said...

I read on Twitter, if only he'd spent $400,000 on Facebook ads....

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
Basically, it comes down this- 10 million is the practical limit given the numbers of candidates the PAC itself supports with the donations. The PAC cuts the 10 million up so that it fits under all the campaign contribution limits for each candidate.


No; the issue there was that the House Majority PAC actually donates money to campaigns. Lots of them.

I am now talking about independent expenditures on First Amendment messaging.

Yancey Ward said...

The Citizens United case allowed the formation of SuperPACS and unlimited donations to them by individuals, corporations and unions etal., but there are the restrictions against coordination still in effect. They are to prevent the candidates and their direct donors frome evading the caps on hard donations by funneling them through SuperPACS.

For purposes of coordination, someone like Bloomberg, if he wants to fund a SuperPAC, will have to avoid direct donations of candidates and PACs that are also restricted to how much they can donate to the candidates. Bloomberg doesn't want to end up in jail, and I am guessing he will scrupulously avoid any coordination by choosing one route or the other, and I am guessing he has already made the choice by this point in time to support candidates directly.

We will get an answer to this pretty quickly- Bloomberg's ads will either continue, or they will stop after today.

Ken B said...

Michael K asked the right question. Can Bloomberg pay for ads for his campaign? Can he continue to run and spend on ads that bash Trump and label them Bloomberg for President?
I do not know. I hope so as a free speech hard liner.

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck,

It is simple- Bloomberg is the coordinating agent if he is donating funds to candidates directly or through PACs and then funding a SuperPAC that attacks any of those candidates' opponents by name.

The FEC will not overlook this sort of effort. Bloomberg has to choose which route to take, and he has probably already taken it. Like I wrote above, he might be able to do both by not mentioning Trump in any SuperPAC funded ad, but that will limit the effectiveness of such ads.

Kevin said...

He had pitched himself to voters as “the un-Trump,” often describing himself as “a sane, competent person

Melvin Udall: Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some "Hey Ivy League, wanna run up a tab on your Amex Black Card" bar, or is it the day after Super Tuesday and your last shot at your self-respect? Sell sane and competent someplace else, the DNC is no place for it this year.

Yancey Ward said...

"Can Bloomberg pay for ads for his campaign?"

He certainly can if his campaign isn't suspended. No one has ever tried to do this with a suspended campaign, though, so there is no FEC case law.

I have watch 5 Youtube videos this morning, no Bloomberg ads at all, but then I live in Tennessee and Youtube knows this- the campaign in Tennessee ended last night, so I am not the right anecdote here. Someone in Michigan, coming up this Tuesday, might still see Bloomberg ads if Bloomberg is finessing the issue this way.

Milwaukie guy said...

If Bloomie's campaign operatives have ironclad contracts through November can he continue to pay them while they "volunteer" on another campaign?

Achilles said...

Meade said...

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
13m
Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn’t in the race, Bernie Sanders would have EASILY won Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas, not to mention various other states. Our modern day Pocahontas won’t go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go down as the all time great SPOILER!


Excellent. I was waiting for this.

Kevin said...

Bloomberg should have stood on the box.

Right Man said...

Mike didn't get it done.

Drago said...

LLR-Chuck: "Wouldn't do anything to coordinate with Biden.
Just attack Trump."

LOL

Why didnt anyone think of that strategy before?

I mean, its genius! Simply attack Trump.

Brilliant! I mean, finally! Right?!

Big Mike said...

Chuck voted for Weld? Oh, he’s the one!

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
Chuck,

Do you really think Bloomberg can contribute unlimited money to PACs?


Pretty much, yeah.

Like the measly $10 million that he sent, in one check, to the House Majority PAC last year. (I regarded it as a little downstroke, to introduce himself to national Democrats before 2020).

He could form his own PAC. And in fact, while he'd no doubt have to report the spending, he could make all kinds of personal expenditures without forming a PAC. He wouldn't mention Biden. Wouldn't support Biden. Wouldn't do anything to coordinate with Biden.
Just attack Trump.



Chuck.

You are a moron.

This is what it looks like when a leftist reads the lies the NYTs tells it's stupid readers about campaign finance laws and pretends to be a lawyer.

So lets look at Chuck's scorecard:

Pierce Bush lost.
Tubberville got more votes than Sessions in the runoff.
Trump has the highest level of republican voter support in history.
Everyone thinks you are stupid.
Everyone thinks you are a liar.
We all just take turns mocking you.

But please don't stop Chuck. You are at your best today. Trump could not have asked you to do more for him than you are doing now.

tim in vermont said...

700 million? This reminds me of when Wayne Huizinga got tired of buying WS championships with the Marlins. But at least Wayne won a championship before he realized it was a waste of money.

Big Mike said...

Ah, Chuck, you peerless political analyst. You do realize that Trump being in a primary means people can contribute the maximum limit for the primary, and then turn around and contribute up to the maximum limit for the general. If Bill Weld hadn’t entered based on his ego and distaste for Trump’s willingness to fight on behalf of Americans, Trump might have had to pay someone to run against him.

Bob Boyd said...

The idea, the concept of Mike Bloomberg For President is totally out of sync with the zeitgeist.
He's the polar opposite of what an overwhelming majority, if you count both parties, are looking for in a candidate. His candidacy, his message and his proposed path to the nomination represent everything people on both sides are so repelled by and angry about.
His candidacy was delusional.

Think of what he could have done with a billion dollars rather than flush it down the toilet of his own egomania. Think of all the single mothers he could have bought a set of tires. That tells you all you need to know about Mike the man right there.
It's not too late for Mike, though. He won't be President, but he's still got billions of dollars and he could something useful with some of it. Something other than playing kingmaker. He could redeem himself. I bet he won't, but he could.
Hell, Mike should buy me a set of tires just for this helpful assessment.

Chuck said...

“...
The FEC will not overlook this sort of effort. Bloomberg has to choose which route to take, and he has probably already taken it. Like I wrote above, he might be able to do both by not mentioning Trump in any SuperPAC funded ad, but that will limit the effectiveness of such ads...”


No candidate “coordination.” Isn’t that what I acknowledged in my first mentioning of this subject?

No, I don’t think the FEC will overlook anything.

I do expect that David Bossie, the former head of Citizens United and now a devoted member of the Trump team (what the fuck is he, anyway? White House staff? Campaign staff? Advisor? Son in law? Family pet? Court jester?) will go apeshit when his case gets used by Bloomberg to make unlimited expenditures against Trump.

Yancey Ward said...

It looks like California has finished assigning all the district level delegates (Texas hasn't yet). Based on the vote totals as of right now, Sanders looks to win 238 delegates in CA while Biden wins 154. This means that Biden will have won last night's total delegate race by about 50 delegates when all the straggling states report- he is +70 right now, but Sanders will reduce this by around 22 in CA, 7 in CO, 4 in Utah. In Texas, there are still 14 district level delegates unassigned, so give Biden 8 and Sanders 6, and the 79 at-large and PLEOs will break Sanders 37 Biden 42, giving Biden a +7 delegates more in Texas. Biden will also pick up about 5+ in the straggling states he won is a good guess.

So 70-22-7-4+7+5= 49 delegate win by Biden last night, giving him an edge in the count of 43 delegates overall when the dust settles.

It isn't over, but it all pretty much depends on what Warren does the rest of the campaign. She isn't likely to poll more than 6-7% or so in the states still to come- her supporters are going to leave her whether she stays in or not, but that 6-7% would mean a lot to Sanders now that Bloomberg has folded his tents.

Yancey Ward said...

Then you acknowledge, Chuck, that Bloomberg can't contribute both hard money and to SuperPacs for the same electoral purpose, right? Is that a concession from you?

Bruce Hayden said...

“ Why don't you go look at the laws regarding how that 10 million has to be spent by those committees. You seem to think the campaign finance laws have no restrictions. Also, ask yourself this- why didn't he donate 1 billion in both cases? The answer you are looking for is in the regulations, you dumb fuck.”

The problem there is that the limitations are de jure, not de facto. There has been a very credible case of gross coordination and over contribution to to Crooked Hillary’s campaign stuck at the FEC for 2-3 years now. It very much appears that her campaign took in almost $100m illegally using a stratagem of having mega donors contributing maybe 40x the legal limit to a combined fund, the total split into 40 or so parts, then flushed through state Dem parties, back to the DNC, and thence to her campaign. Ostensibly legal. BUT it was completely coordinated. If $X went to each state Dem party $X was sent back to the DNC the next day by each state party. Or even the same day. Making things worse, many or most of the state parties shared the same bank with the DNC and the Clinton campaign, so that one person could do all 82 or so transfers from their computer. The spreadsheet filed with the complaint might show 40 $2,111 checks going out, then a bunch of $2,111 checks coming back the next day. The problem is that this level of coordination essentially means that these state parties, along with the DNC, were acting as alter egos for the Clinton campaign. And if you divide by maybe $2k contributions, you get roughly 100k violations of the campaign laws by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and another 1,000 or so big donors who committed a violation. With the Dnesh D’Sousa precedent, they could all do a couple months in prison, and Clinton could do the rest of her natural life, plus another millennium of her afterlife. But as we all know, there is a different justice for rich and powerful Democrats, and everyone else.

Ken B said...

Okay. I will kinda defend Chuck for a moment. Chuck thinks Bloomberg can give the Democrats mega bucks. Lots of you cry “you idiot, he cannot do that! That would be cheating!”

Do I really need to point out why Chuck might be right here?

At worst there might be actions taken after the election. Bloomberg has a lot of lawyers. And if Biden wins, would there be any consequences anyway? And if he can pass it off as his campaign under some pretext it’s even easier for him.

Chuck might not be right, because Bloomberg might just decide to pack it in. But he is no idiot for thinking Democrats cheat, and get away with cheating. Ask Ron Coleman.

Yancey Ward said...

If I am wrong here, then it means there are no limits to campaign money despite the laws themselves- the hole driven through them is infinite- you donate limited money to the candidates, then unlimited money attacking the opponent by name- the very definition of perfect coordination. I am pretty fucking certain that isn't the case, otherwise Bloomberg's colleagues in the billionaire club would have driven through it already, which none of them have.

Like I wrote, Bloomberg can fund a campaign that tries to attack Trump without naming him, but again, he would have to be very careful to not run afoul of the law- there is spirit of the law that matters, too, and can fuck you up it you toy with it too carelessly.

Ken B said...

Yancey
Here is my argument. Election law can be deployed against Republicans like Dinesh D,Souza quite effectively, but not as effectively against rich democrats, especially if Biden wins.
You disagree?

Yancey Ward said...

Bruce, the scheme wasn't legal at all- it turned campaign contribution to others into Clinton Campaign contributions. I don't think Bloomberg will take any risk like this personally- his hard money donations will still be capped at some value fixed by the numbers of candidates the PACs support and the individual limits. What the DNC does with that pool money is out of Bloomberg's hands- he wouldn't be legally responsible.

Yancey Ward said...

I would just axe all the campaign finance laws but for disclosure by the candidate himself- I would also remove the tax deduction. I think it should be perfectly legal for Bloomberg to run an anti-Trump campaign if he wants to- I don't see how any restriction on it is compatible with the first admendment, but I am, apparently, a minority position these days.

Yancey Ward said...

No, Ken, I don't disagree, but I don't Bloomberg is the kind of person to risk it- especially given the amounts of money being talked about here. It is one thing to let a Democrat donor skate for a million dollar illegal donation, another for it to be 100 million dollars, or more. At some point, the embarrassment forces prosecutors and regulators to actually act against their normal political interest.

FullMoon said...

Sanders looks to win 238 delegates in CA while Biden wins 154.

Finally, my vote counted for something.

Achilles said...

Ken B said...


Chuck might not be right, because Bloomberg might just decide to pack it in. But he is no idiot for thinking Democrats cheat, and get away with cheating. Ask Ron Coleman.

I totally agree on the two tiered justice system stuff.

My point is that Chuck thinks it is legal or at least makes the case as to why Bloomberg would be allowed to do this.

If Chuck was just honest and said openly the deep state/oligarchs get to do what they want shut up peasants! then fine.

But Chuck is not that honest.

Curious George said...

I'm not going to speak to campaign laws, but I don't see Bloomberg pissing away hundreds of millions to help someone else become President. I'm sure he hates Trump, but I'm equally sure that he doesn't want to lose to him again! He's no fool, he can see the trainwreck that's coming.

Ficta said...

I still think the decision to sit out the early states really hurt Bloomberg (as it did Giuliani before him). The American people want to see their candidates put in some effort: yes, you really do have to go eat deep fried pig snouts on a stick in Iowa. Yes you do have to go to a VFW hall in bumf*k New Hampshire and listen to some flannel wrapped coot gas on for 20 minutes. It's the least you can do. Show us how much you really want the job.

Chuck said...

3/4/20, 12:28 PM
Blogger Ken B said...
Okay. I will kinda defend Chuck for a moment. Chuck thinks Bloomberg can give the Democrats mega bucks. Lots of you cry “you idiot, he cannot do that! That would be cheating!”
...


Actually I would not say that because that is not true.

Donations to candidates are strictly limited. Limited by donor, limited in maximum amounts. Donations to political parties only slightly less so. And there are very strict quarterly reporting requirements on all of it.

“Independent expenditures” are what I am talking about.

So let’s say I ran a non-profit organization and I called it “Citizens United.” And through that organization, I produced a documentary film in a politician that I disliked. Let’s pick Hillary Clinton. The costs of funding and production and promotion of the documentary film went way, way beyond all allowable donations to campaigns. And yet I wanted to air that film on television during one of Hillary’s election campaigns. So the FEC stepped in and said I couldn’t do that.

What would happen if I sued the FEC to enjoin their enforcement? I would win. And of course the case I just described is Citizens United v. FEC.

Ken B said...

Curious
That might be right. It won’t be the money that bugs him, it will be the prospect of a Trump mega gloat. Bad enough from Bloomberg's point of view to see Trump win; worse to see him gloat over Bloomberg's failed efforts. Better to not make the effort.

Ken B said...

Chuck
Do you really think I was defending *you*? Or giving you credit for admitting the Democrats cheat? You need to study some basic rhetoric my friend.

Tomcc said...

The sister of my daughter’s boyfriend ended her stint with Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign yesterday. $150k for 2 months as a health care policy advisor. Plus an apartment in NY and a dog-walker.

PubliusFlavius said...

When will the Senator from Mass. exit stage left?

Long after multiple shivs of Ol'Bernster?

Ken B said...

Chuck
I do thank you for the summary of Citizen's United. Sanders said that case was wrongly decided. He wants to change the constitution to trim the parts of the first amendment which the court relied on. I say that means Sanders is explicitly running against the first amendment. Farmer disagrees.

Ken B said...

Warren can only get the nomination if she stays in. She needs enough delegates to ensure deadlock. Then hope she becomes the compromise candidate. She doesn’t need an obscure motive.

Watch the bad movie The Best Man.

Chuck said...

Ken B;

I think that basically every Democrat says that they hate the Citizens United decision. Many of them say that they would “overturn” it. I have no clue as to how a President would “overturn” a precedent-setting (for 10 years) Supreme Court decision based on First Amendment rights.

I love the decision, and always have. I dislike the BCRA (“McCain-Feingold”) and always have.

These are not conflicts for me. They are terrible conflicts for Trumpsters who liked Citizens United, but who would now try to stop Bloomberg from spending millions to defeat Trump. And also terrible conflicts for Democrats who professed opposition to Citizens United but who would now utilize the decision to facilitate Bloomberg’s expenditures on anti-Trump advertising.

Yet another instance where my mainstream Republican/movement conservative history is perfectly consistent with all of my current positions.

Curious George said...

"Ken B said...
Curious
That might be right. It won’t be the money that bugs him, it will be the prospect of a Trump mega gloat. Bad enough from Bloomberg's point of view to see Trump win; worse to see him gloat over Bloomberg's failed efforts. Better to not make the effort."

I don't think Mini-Mike has any problems spending the money either, but it is that action that put's his name on the race. And he won't risk being a loser to Trump, He is no fool, and won't gamble his money and pride on a demented slobbering fool like Biden.

Drago said...

LLR-lefty and Sudden-Onset-Socialist Chuck: "Yet another instance where my mainstream Republican/movement conservative history is perfectly consistent with all of my current positions."

LOL

Totally believable........totally.

Bilwick said...

I'm actually sorry to see Nanny State Mike go. I was waiting for him to clarify two points raised by this tv ads:

(1) What makes healthcare a "right"?

(2) One of his ads talks about him representing "the American Dream." Whar part of the American Dream is statism, anyway?

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck approved Chuckie Schumer: “I want to tell you Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch: You have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

Wow.

Nothing to see there, eh?

narciso said...

I think they found the wrong remedy, citizens united was about access not money,

Chuck said...

narciso said...
I think they found the wrong remedy, citizens united was about access not money,


Citizens United was about expenditures, not fundraising. That was the distinction for our purposes in discussing Bloomberg. He doesn’t need to fund-raise. And unlike lots of big political financiers, he doesn’t care if the whole world knows what he is up to.

So fundraising is not a concern. Legal expenditures are the concern.

He just wants to pump out mass quantities of high-quality Trump criticism. As an American with free speech rights to criticize the President in any way, and in whatever amount he chooses.

Arashi said...

So now how does mini-mike funnel that 1.5 billion bucks he pledged to spend on his campaign (origianlly 2 billion, but he already spent .5 billion) into the demented joe campaign and the down ballot dem races legally?

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck: "He just wants to pump out mass quantities of high-quality Trump criticism. As an American with free speech rights to criticize the President in any way, and in whatever amount he chooses."

Perfect.

Then all Trump has to do in battleground states is tie Bloomy tighter and tighter to Biden to emphasize stop and frisk, gun confiscation, infanticide, and on and on it goes.

Biden and the lefty NYC mayor! That should play fantastically well for Trump in Scranton.

Drago said...

But you know, maybe LLR-lefty Chuck is right.

Maybe NOW is the perfect time to rerun the Jeb campaign strategy.

Good thinking Chuck! Really, that's some solid "out of the box" "strategery" there!

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Even better, I can envision an entire ad mini-campaign in battleground states showing how Bloomy and big money backers are funding a Biden Zombie Campaign so they can enact the far left/marxist/LLR policies they've dreamed of lo these many years!

Then, every ad bloomy runs will drive home that counter-message!

You know, I have to say, if I'm ever again involved in a campaign, I pray that LLR-lefty Chuck will be my opponents chief advisor.

Achilles said...

Drago said...

Even better, I can envision an entire ad mini-campaign in battleground states showing how Bloomy and big money backers are funding a Biden Zombie Campaign so they can enact the far left/marxist/LLR policies they've dreamed of lo these many years!

The mensheviks won this round.

But every time Bloomberg pops his head in the campaign he would remind the Bolsheviks how much they hate the mensheviks.

I predict a very meager 18-25 voter turnout.

I think we should let the bolsheviks eat the menshiviks when the food runs out.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

While viable in one sense, a burden in another, Bloomberg chose to abort his campaign.

That said, he, and other Democrats, have reached a consensus with Trump, that the problem for affordable and available medical care is Obamacares and sustainable, progressive prices.

Openidname said...

"Bob Boyd said...

"Think of what he could have done with a billion dollars rather than flush it down the toilet of his own egomania. Think of all the single mothers he could have bought a set of tires."

It wasn't flushed down the toilet. It was paid to people -- employees, or vendors that have employees. Some of those employees were single mothers who needed tires.

Charity isn't the only way to help the poor. It isn't even the best way.

Achilles said...

I have failed.

I should have mentioned Brewsters Millions.

There is a movie that already covers the Bloomberg campaign.

Bay Area Guy said...

Bloomberg's Presidential Aspirations:

1.1.20 - Unprecedented spending spree -- tv ads everywhere

2.19.20 -- First debate - #Fail . Got scalped by fake Indian Warren.

2.19 - 2.26 -- Continued spending spree

2.26.20 -- Second debate. Boring. More Spending.

3.3.20 -- Super Tuesday: Wins America Samoa!

3.4.20 -- Quits

What a maroon!

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Sean Davis Twitter: "If only Bloomberg had hired Russians to buy $100,000 in barely literate Facebook ads, instead of spending $700 MILLION, he’d be president now. That’s what the media have told us for 3+ years."

bagoh20 said...

Why would anyone want someone as President who would spend that kind of money on that goal and that result. This failure disqualifies him for any public office involving budgets or spending public money. He has completely lost touch with it's value.

Robert Cook said...

"And people keep saying Bloomberg is wealthier then Trump."

That's true, if the metric is amount of dollars they each have. Bloomberg can buy and sell Donnie several times over. Bloomberg is also smarter than Trump. However, he is bankrupt of the "common touch" that allows Trump to charm people into thinking he gives a shit about them. Taking their respective merits and demerits and wealth into consideration...they're both assholes.

Nick said...

Wow called that one wrong aye?

Michael K said...

Taking their respective merits and demerits and wealth into consideration...they're both assholes.

Says the poor asshole.

Michael K said...


He just wants to pump out mass quantities of high-quality Trump criticism. As an American with free speech rights to criticize the President in any way, and in whatever amount he chooses.


If he has endorsed Biden, these are all contributions.

I thought you were a lawyer,

mockturtle said...

They're telling WA voters not to lick their ballot envelopes. Seriously.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

So Chuck thinks that there’s a scarcity, an actual shortage, of anti-Trump propaganda, and that if Bloomburp just spends enough money the GOPe will finally thankfully convince the rest of us that OrangeManBad. Really! Can he not see every public voice, every entertainment and news purveyor already doing their damnedest to sway us shame us shun us and shove us that way already? My God, Man! Have you no eyes nor ears?

“High quality” anti-Trump propaganda! Well, LOLGF as they say! What a loser.

Unknown said...

As stated by Stanford Medical, It is in fact the one and ONLY reason women in this country get to live 10 years longer and weigh an average of 42 lbs less than we do.

(By the way, it has totally NOTHING to do with genetics or some secret exercise and EVERYTHING about "how" they are eating.)

P.S, I said "HOW", not "what"...

Click this link to find out if this short test can help you unlock your real weight loss potential

Curious George said...

"Robert Cook said...
However, he is bankrupt of the "common touch" that allows Trump to charm people into thinking he gives a shit about them."

Robert Cook, the world's decoder ring.