... in Florida and $15 million in Ohio and Texas — and Biden lost in all of those states, Business Insider reports.
What an astounding record of fruitless political spending! I was going to say, this record will last for ages, but then I realized... no. It will be smashed within the next 10 years. Don't you see why?
Bloomberg is super-rich with $55 billion, but that only puts him at #14 on the Forbes' list of richest people in America. Jeff Bezos — #1 — has more than 3 times that much money. Why wouldn't he spend $3 billion or more if he ran for President... or just wanted to back one party's candidates?
And since Trump won the presidency in his first run for office, spending his own money, why wouldn't other businessfolk think they have a shot? Just because Bloomberg failed so so badly? Some will resist the lure, but not all. Somebody's going to have the vanity and extra money to think they can be the next Trump and they're not going to be the next Bloomberg. In any case, Bloomberg was not a newcomer to politics. He'd been the NYC mayor for 12 years. He wasn't just parachuting in with his business expertise and money. He was more grounded in political reality. These other billionaires don't have that limitation. They can think, If Trump could do it....
Posts
71 comments:
He could have given that money to charity.
Alas - leftists are the most uncharitable bastards on earth.
The only charity leftists give to ===> the charity of making other leftists rich. The leftwing corruption money hole.
This will be my example number one that money spent on political campaigns doesn't ruin politics. There is a limit to what money can do, so there's no reason to restrict it.
That ex-addict Pillow manufacturer comes to mind. He'd be okay in elected office.
Democrats frustrated they can't buy elections...
Maybe someone will realize that spending zillions of dollars on elections no longer works very well?
It isn't about money any more. This is the mistake we keep making, thinking they care. They have enough money they literally never have to worry about running out. Profitability (as conservatives so often point out...) is not the objective. They could lose two billion, three, ten....doesn't matter.
The objective is not profitability or ROI, the objective is control. Their money doesn't mean anything in the same way it does for you or me or Fred down the street, their money is a bottomless bag they can draw from to attack you and control you.
They can miss again and again and a million times over, but you can't miss once. This is a very powerful thing. They will throw more money at Nate Silver. They will throw another $2 billion in 2022. Twenty in 2024...doesn't matter. You/we can't miss once.
Trump knew the USA isn’t NYC. Bloomberg apparently didn’t.
George Soros has already blown by anything Bloomberg has spent. Soros does it under the guise of umbrella 'companies'- a slew of activist organizations with names that range from sweet sounding to in your face hate groups. He funds these various groups, their leaders, other 'civic' leaders, far left politicians.
Soros spends all year long on this stuff. His 'campaign' spending is constant.
I think that all of those ads Biden bought got him nothing. Maybe it was a strategy to deny those same ads to Trump, so maybe that was something, but he already had the networks censoring Trump’s most powerful arguments.
I think that it’s a way to launder money through the vigorish that the people placing the ads collect.
Never hear about how money is bad in political races when the D's outspend the R's. It's only the reverse when the media finds a problem and then champions a remedy that is both unconstitutional and serves to cement their own status and power as the gatekeeper of information/oracle of truth. Social media cut into the established power of old media and now is exercising that same gatekeeper/oracle role.
They can think, If Trump could do it....
But... They're NOT TRUMP!
MikeR said...
Maybe someone will realize that spending zillions of dollars on elections no longer works very well?
well, look at how well it worked for Jeb Bush! oh, wait....
well, look at how well it worked for Tom Steyer! oh, wait
He needs better pollsters. But then again don't we all?
I am not sure how you are supposed to poll massive voter fraud though.
"They can miss again and again and a million times over, but you can't miss once."
Same for pubic spending and school referendums. Spend huge sums in special interest dollars (teachers unions, construction PACs), take it to the voters who have no financial backers for the "No" side, but still lose? No worries. Just do it again next time, wash, rinse, repeat until approved. Then $100 million in public money is spent and property taxes are raised for 20 years.
It's a hobby, like photography, fishing, you know... a hobby.
Just why do you think the press gins up the issues. It's like they're seeding the clouds, cash falls from the skies like a juicy advance for Obama's memoirs.
Rich White men with money to burn blows it on blow hards.....Maybe they should look in the mirror to see what is actually wrong in this country.
Hey Mini Mike, can you loan me a couple of million dollars! I will fight Trump in Berkeley, CA -- and I promise to pay it back!
NYC elections seem more susceptible to money.
I wonder how much Blasio spent, and from where it came.
That was also said about Ross Perot, but his spending did influence the result of the election as did Bloomberg’s. The interesting unanswerable is whether Biden would have done better in Florida without Bloomberg’s spending.
It's fair to say Bloomberg had political experience, but I'm not sure that suggests being more grounded in any reality.
He got to feel like he's a billionaire who's also 5'11?
Matt Stoller@matthewstoller
1h
The silver lining of ex-tobacco lobbyist Jaime Harrison spending $100M to get crushed for a Senate seat in South Carolina is that he's building election infrastructure for the future and by that I mean his political consultants all get new Teslas.
I don't think ads work that great, but what is very effective is paying people to cheat, which there is plenty of video evidence of them bragging about and how well it pays. You don't just spend the money on an ad that you hope gets votes. Cheating is guaranteed votes for your money, and you can target it right where you need it.
It's all part of the same rot that is:
*no prosecution of rioters and looters
*covid restrictions that apply to everyone but protesters, rioters, Chris Cuomo, and Nancy Pelosi.
*no prosecution for leaking personal or classified information
*no prosecution for having highly sensitive info on a server in your bathroom and deleting subpoenaed emails
* no charges for destroying subpoenaed cell phones by the dozens
* and on and on endlessly.
While the races Bloomberg wanted to win he did not win, it can be argued his money either made those races more competitive than they otherwise would have been, and also that maybe Bloomberg's money forced R's to spend money in those areas that R's otherwise would not have spent.
It's pretty clear that Bloomberg is one of the rich fucks that thinks he really is superior to everyone else, despite the fact that he looks up to everyone but Danny Devito.
These businessmen can't do it because they run as Democrats. As Democrats, they need to talk about how they feel your pain, how unfair America is to keep you down. But they are the business men, are the people, in the eyes of the downtrodden, keep their boots on their necks. They will appear as phonies as they are.
Trump never apologizes for his wealth which is about 1/55 of Bloomberg's. Trump never says anything about the poor being exploited. He wanted the downtrodden to have a chance to work and make money for themselves. Like him or not, he is never a phony. People can smell a phony miles away.
BarrySanders...very good point. Way way back when the "elite" thinking was R's won because of "big money", all the elites, D's, and John McCain were for reducing/eliminating money in politics. The same groups all embrace big money now, and they have much more of it.
" wonder how much Blasio spent, and from where it came.”
He showed up in the Panama Papers, so who knows where it came from.
The following should be obvious, but for some reason it often eludes certain people's understanding: If someone has a great deal of expertise in a particular field it does not necessarily follow that such a person will have a broader expertise.
Bloomberg has a great deal of experitise in a series of (arguably) somewhat narrow fields. He's obviously had a great deal of success in the business world which is indicative of a fairly high level of competance at minimum. And since he was able to get himself elected as mayor of New York he clearly has some ability as a politician.
But he seems to lack some basic comprehension when it comes to broader human nature outside of the elite bubble he's immersed in. He has a very low understanding of what motivates non elite people, what concerns them, what animates them, what encourages and discourages them. And what's worse is that he not only fails to understand normal people, he in fact seems to have a disdain for them. And I would extend this out beyond just Bloomberg, but to the entire caste of our would be betters.
"That was also said about Ross Perot, but his spending did influence the result of the election as did Bloomberg’s. "
Perot had far more influence than Bloomberg. He gave the election to Clinton, all by himself.
My initial fear in 2015 was that Trump would be a Perot and do the same for another Clinton.
Perot had a personality and aura that Bloomberg does not have. Perhaps Bloomberg has or had the sort of audacity and astuteness that Perot had, but he was incapable of articulating his ideas with the charisma (an odd sort of charisma, but yes he had it), clarity and novelty.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
The difference is that Trump had a message that resonated because it was true. Perot was on the way to at least my vote in 1992 when he went bonkers about his daughter's wedding. He was on the right track about NAFTA. Trump has been talking about many of the things he ran on for years. He sensed the middle class resentment and anger. Few billionaires would have that sense. Maybe it's a career in the building business that gives him the feel for what others think. He has a history of impulsive generosity. His mother was being mugged and a truck driver helped her. Trump paid off his mortgage.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Static Ping said: I am not sure how you are supposed to poll massive voter fraud though.
The only choices are to poll FOR the coming fraud, or AGAINST the coming fraud.
We just saw an example of the former.
There's just nothing money can do if the damn dogs won't eat the damn dog food!
Trump succeeded not just in business but also in show business. A great combination as it turned out. Bezos doesn't have his charisma.
You're probably right, but I have hope--the last few election cycles have really undermined the notion that money alone can win a campaign.
Bloomberg also gives a lot to charity, unlike Trump.
It wasn't just Bloomberg. I was listening to Rush a couple of weeks ago and he mentioned some small group of Silicon Valley gazillionnairs that each ponied up $50-100 MILLION apiece to a group that poured millions into various Senate races across the country. Money down the drain.
I hope the WSJ or Federalist of Washington Examiner adds up the billions of dollars spent by libs/progressives this year in one of the major fails of recent political history (unless they were funding the fraud in PA).
Didn't flip the Senate.
Lost seats in the House.
Didn't flip A Single State Legislature - which means Republicans control re-districting.
Didn't gain a Governor (actually, lost one).
Billions Wasted.
If the Bait-Switch ticket does end up winning, the one thing it will have accomplished is keeping Obama and Hillary out of jail, which might be the whole point of the exercise.
It is so obvious that Gates, Bezos, Bloomberg, Dorsey, and Zuckerburg are all somewhere on the Asperger’s spectrum. Trump is definitely not.
Trump has lots of quirks, but he connects with people. Those condos don’t sell themselves!
I think Bloomberg was always more concerned with stopping Bernie than Trump. Perhaps he feared he'd lost even more money if a more redistributionist agenda became ascendant.
Trump's victory never had much to do with "self-funding," which was always a mostly bogus claim. No way Trump had the liquidity to fund his own campaign. Trump's advantages were his celebrity and a presentation style that was perfect for riding a populist wave of anti-elite resentment among the white working class. He's like a pro wrestling character who can easily alternate between playing heel and playing face.
A Mini Mike and his money are soon parted.
Everyone who reads this blog needs to watch “Glengarry Glen Ross” with special attention to Richard Roma’s speech in the bar and the character played by Alec Baldwin’s pep talk to the salesmen.
Reduced to its essentials that is the world DJT lived in while in New York. Read about his tussles in Atlantic City.
All this controversy is nothing to him. He has survived worse.
Blogger readering said...
Bloomberg also gives a lot to charity, unlike Trump.
What do you wanna bet it is less than he wasted on politics?
Static Ping said: I am not sure how you are supposed to poll massive voter fraud though.
The only choices are to poll FOR the coming fraud, or AGAINST the coming fraud.
We just saw an example of the former.
Oh, I agree. But apparently the polls were so bad that even they were believing their own BS.
>A fool and his money are soon parted.
Yea, it seems billionaires are strangely vulnerable to political con artists. And not just the lefty ones, same comment applies to the right- and libertarian- leaning ones.
It must be a power fantasy, made realistic sounding because of their money.
Do the same with Foundations/ThinkTanks set up by these same people >>>
answer to why culture sucks.
Democrats' failure in Florida and Texas suggests that the complete failure of polling this election may actually have helped Republicans on balance more than it hurt them. The $100's of millions Democrats blew on what turned out to be long shot campaigns against Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins could instead have been spent more effectively in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where Biden might still ultimately eke out the win, but which could potentially have ended up as clear and convincing victories had resources been allocated more intelligently. But pollsters were telling Democrats they were ahead by 17% in Wisconsin, not 0.5% or whatever it's supposed to be now. Pollsters were saying Collins was consistently 5~10% behind her challenger. Et cetera et cetera. Same with those safe-seat/toss-up house race charts pollsters and election analysts prepared where the toss-ups look mostly Republican and a bunch of the Democrats' safe seats turned out to be toss-ups. Democrats trusted the experts. Foolishly, as it turned out.
According to Jim Blaine (not sure who he is exactly) Bloomberg also flushed about $10 million trying to defeat this guy
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/11/history-made-republican-mark-robinson-becomes-north-carolinas-first-african-american-lt-governor/
See the Tweet quoted at the end of the story
Reduced to its essentials that is the world DJT lived in while in New York. Read about his tussles in Atlantic City.
I love Glengarry Glen Ross and the original Mamet play. You picked two of the best scenes, but for me Jack Lemmon's performance knocked it out of the park.
I take your point and basically agree, but there is a subtle difference between real estate sales and real estate development. While both often involve blatant lying, a developer isn't so much selling real estate as providing a mediating service between a bank, city regulatory offices, a construction company, and potential tenants. A salesman only has to lie to a lead. A developer has to spin a whole web of bullshit to keep all the balls in the air and get the deal to close. Trump is uniquely talented for such a vocation.
>>I think that all of those ads Biden bought got him nothing.
But he's battling for the soul of America! You aren't against souls, are you?
>What do you wanna bet it is less than he wasted on politics?
I think a lot of it is to "charity" only in the modern sense of that term i.e., including non-profit groups organized to push a political issue.
> Trump succeeded not just in business but also in show business. A great combination as it turned out. Bezos doesn't have his charisma.
Bezos should buy Google and Twitter
Along with Wapoo and CNN
and make a Political Orgasmatron
Just run as a deep fake
the only opinion you will have is what your senses assign you from Bezos News
And since Trump won the presidency in his first run for office, spending his own money, why wouldn't other businessfolk think they have a shot? Just because Bloomberg failed so so badly? Some will resist the lure, but not all. Somebody's going to have the vanity and extra money to think they can be the next Trump and they're not going to be the next Bloomberg.
Trump was running at the right time, with the right message: it's not the job of the government of the United States of America to be looking to raise the standard of living in China and attempting to introduce democracy into a country dominated by a theocratic Taliban. We need to focus on improving the lot of the people in our own country, ordinary citizens who lost their jobs to "free trade" that was had been gamed by our economic adversaries to, quite literally, take food off the plates of the children of those citizens. In summary: America first, and the people who work for a living come before the billionaires. Coming on the heels of being told by elitists that they were a "basket of deplorables" who "bitterly cling to their guns and religion," that message was refreshing.
By contrast Bloomberg's was, first and only, gun confiscation. Who does not love gun confiscation? Well, for starters, women who find themselves threatened by abusive ex-boyfriends or divorced husbands, women who are being stalked, families forced through economic circumstances to live in high crime areas, people (of both sexes) who love to hunt, people who love to compete in shooting sports, and, especially, people living through the riots and violent demonstrations, meaning people who fear that they might be out in their car, running an errand and minding their own business, when they turn a corner and find their car surrounded by screaming young men and women beating on it and trying to yank them out of the car to deliver a person beat-down. And that's always going to be a majority in the US of A.
Bloomberg certainly pissed away $100m to no positive political affect, and it's fun to mock him, but keep in mind that is a very, very small fraction of his net worth. More embarrassing than the money spent is the fact that he backed and promoted losers.
Someone mentioned Perot.
No electoral votes but he did get 18% of the popular vote. Even came in second in a couple states.
I dont think, but could be wrong, that he spent as much money as Bloomberg did. Adjusted for inflation
John Henry
See also: Lincoln Project 'Epically Failed,' Say Progressives as Trump Wins Bigger Share of Republican Voters Than in 2016
"Turns out there were no 'Biden Republicans.'"
Just run as a deep fake
I read a story about this years before "deep fake"s were a thing. The job of president had gotten so complicated that no one person could do it, so a group ran pretending to be one person, who was the figurehead, but it was a real person.
In this day of hiding in basements with Zoom, perhaps Max Headroom should run...
Micheal K
Perot was on the way to at least my vote in 1992 when he went bonkers about his daughter's wedding.
Likewise, I was going to vote for Perot until his rant about his daughter's wedding. Some time later, I met a guy in Toastmasters who had done some consulting for one of Perot's companies. He told me that the consensus among Perot's employees was that yes, the guy was crazy.
I haven't read all the comments, but I would be surprised if someone hasn't pointed out a very good example of what money in politics buys. Disney acquired FOX and all of a sudden it became as left wing as the alphabet networks and nearly all of cable news. That is why its former viewers stamped to such tiny outfits as Newsmax and OANN. Watch them grow and grow.
Easy come, easy go. I don't see a problem.
And he also got to feel good about himself, which is not nothing, especially when you are a short homely aging man whom nobody really likes.
If Bloomberg were married, he'd probably have to explain this to his wife.
You know, that Bloomberg money could have been better used by almost anybody out there. Even a drug addicted criminal would use it to get too high and get himself killed, but unfortunately Bloomberg isn't even that good with money.
I understand that $100 Million is pocket change for Bloomberg.
But to blow it on...Joe Biden? Really?
I think that Disney bought the Fox Entertainment assets.
Fox News is still owned by Murdoch's Fox Corporation, which owns the television and cable assets that Disney did not buy. A sister corporation, News Corp, owns Dow Jones (publisher of the Wall Street Journal and Barron's), the New York Post, the Times of London, The Sun (London), and a bunch of Australian newspapers. They also own Harper Collins, the book publisher.
This was an unusual campaign, to say the least. Biden's media blitz was coupled with his relative lack of personal appearances. All the media spending may have had more of an effect with a more active candidate who got out of his bunker more often.
And since Trump won the presidency in his first run for office, spending his own money, why wouldn't other businessfolk think they have a shot?
Sure. Tom Steyer. How soon we forget.
"Some people who have historically been oppressed will stand with the oppressors, and will aspire to power by proximity. . ."
Is the learned scholar referring to how the groups who have been the biggest victims of statism down through the centuries--Blacks, Jews, women, Gays, writers--are now the State's most loyal water-carriers?
Post a Comment