ChrisWeigant.com

Don't Let Bloomberg Have A Free Pass

[ Posted Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 17:07 UTC ]

That headline might be misleading, because some might read it as me joining in the complaints that Michael Bloomberg is somehow getting a "free pass" into the next debate. Nothing could be further from my meaning, though, because my actual message is that continuing to exclude Bloomberg from the Democratic primary campaign process -- which includes not only the debates, but also full media vetting and crossfire from the other candidates -- is the "free pass" that Bloomberg has, up until now, both enjoyed and ruthlessly exploited. To state it even more bluntly: Bloomberg needs to be challenged directly, and the sooner this happens the better. Any Democratic candidate who doesn't yet realize this is ignoring Bloomberg's possible impact on the race to his or her own peril, plain and simple.

How is not allowing Bloomberg into the debates a good thing? That's the question that really needs to be asked of those charging that he is "buying his way into the election," and that somehow this shouldn't be allowed. So far, what both the mainstream media and pretty much all the other candidates have largely been doing is to completely ignore Bloomberg in some sort of wishful hope that he'll eventually just go away. This is a dangerous fantasy, because he's not going anywhere (and neither is his money). Don't believe me? Then why is it that Bloomberg's name was not even mentioned by any of the Democratic candidates in any of the debates so far, until the last one happened? Even that appearance was instructive, because the moderator openly admitted that they had asked for viewers' questions to be submitted in real time, and what they got was an overwhelming number requesting that Bloomberg's campaign be addressed by the candidates on stage. In other words, the moderators themselves were not going to ask about him until the viewers absolutely demanded it. It's as if an 800-pound gorilla was in the room, yet neither the moderators nor the candidates thought it worthy to even comment on the shaggy heavyweight present. "Gorilla? What gorilla? Hey, let's have the Medicare For All debate dustup for the eighth or ninth time instead of talking about King Kong, whaddya say?" This is precisely what I mean when I say that Bloomberg, up until now, has gotten a completely free pass from both the media and the other candidates. They prefer not to talk about him at all, which lasted right up until the viewers demanded that the subject be raised.

The answers to the question from the candidates in that debate were pretty pathetic as well, I have to say. Pretty much every single respondent on stage smugly echoed a very similar line: "Billionaires shouldn't be allowed to buy their way into the process." That was it. There was zero commentary on Bloomberg's actual campaign, beyond a generic decrying of the influence of money in politics. Nobody took him on in any meaningful way. Nobody pointed out any of his shortcomings. Nobody addressed the absolute flood of television advertising he's been airing on its substance. Beyond "Money in politics is bad, mmmkay?" there wasn't even a halfhearted attempt to directly take on Bloomberg in any substantive way whatsoever. That, again, is the free pass I refer to.

Allowing Bloomberg to continue his campaign completely unchallenged is nothing short of collusion with his attempt to buy his way in, period. Which is why every single Democratic presidential candidate should have been on their knees begging the Democratic National Committee to allow Bloomberg into the debates, weeks ago. To their credit, more than one actually did so (well, not on their knees, but through a letter to the D.N.C.). The only way to counter that flood of advertising is to challenge him directly, in person, on a debate stage. That's the only way to level the playing field at this point. Which is why the other candidates should not only be jumping at the opportunity to do so, but actually demanding that it happen.

Bloomberg's ad blitz is exactly what you would expect from a candidate with a bottomless supply of money. I don't know about any other states, but at this point you cannot turn on a television in California without seeing multiple Bloomberg ads within the first 15 minutes of viewing. And, I should point out, California is possibly the most expensive media market in the entire country. His ads are all very high quality, with excellent production values and clever scripts. Bloomberg, because he essentially has the field to himself in every state except the first four to vote, has been claiming the moon, the sun, and the stars for himself in these ads. He's the guy who (somehow, inexplicably) got Obamacare passed. No, really -- that's what his ads do more than just subtly imply. Mike also, according to his ads, made New York City a paradise on Earth. One of his latest ads insinuates that Barack Obama has all but officially endorsed him. I'm not making this stuff up -- it's out there for hundreds of millions of viewers to see. And, unlike the other candidates with more limited ad budgets, by the time you get tired of one Bloomberg ad, it is replaced with another one touting Mike to the skies. And none of his claims has been challenged in any way whatsoever by any of the other candidates -- not through attack ads of their own, not through attacks in interviews, and most assuredly not by a complacent media that can't see beyond the first-four-state horserace dynamics (where, since Bloomberg is not on the ballot, he can thus be completely ignored). Bloomberg has taken his free pass and made the most of it, much like a skier with a season pass that visits the slopes five or six times a week. Again, I don't know about other Super Tuesday states, but the only other presidential campaign ads I've yet seen out here are from Tom Steyer (who hails from California, it's worth pointing out).

What has the mountain of money Bloomberg has spent so far (reportedly $300 million and climbing) bought him, while everyone else is completely ignoring him? A whole lot of support, if the polls can be believed. This isn't all that surprising, because voters outside of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina are only seeing Mike's ads. Over and over and over again. "Hey, he seems like a competent get-things-done kind of guy in his ads, so maybe he's the Democrat worth supporting" is the conclusion millions of primary voters are now making. This is not overstating the case at all, either. Bloomberg is now polling in third place in the national polls, and this is even worse than it sounds because one of the two candidates still above him (for now) is Joe Biden -- whose poll numbers are currently on such a precipitous slide that Bloomberg could pass him within the next week or so. That would put a candidate that every other candidate is absolutely ignoring into second place nationally, behind only Bernie Sanders. That is what Bloomberg's free pass has bought him.

What should be even more worrisome to the other Democrats running was one particular poll that broke their numbers down demographically. Joe Biden slipped in one month's time from commanding a whopping 49 percent support among African-American voters to only 27 percent -- a drop of almost half. Bloomberg rose to 22 percent in the same poll, to put him in second place nationally. Among African-American voters. That's what carpet-bombing the airwaves in virtually every single state buys you, when nobody takes on the claims your ads make in any meaningful way. Denouncing a billionaire for being a billionaire, or for spending a fraction of his fortune on a presidential campaign does not blunt the ads' message at all. Not one tiny bit. And, not to sound like a broken record, this is precisely the free pass Bloomberg has gotten, right up until two days ago.

This needs to end. We've even now got a taste for how vulnerable Bloomberg actually is. A lone podcaster dug up some audio of Mike -- from only five years ago -- sounding awfully racist in his full-throated support for "stop and frisk." This is instructive for a number of reasons. First, this stuff is out there and easy to find. Bloomberg has been on the public stage for quite some time, and he's amassed a record of public appearances to be mined for opposition research. Bloomberg was also -- and not so very long ago -- a Republican politician, and that meant he donated lots of money to plenty of other Republican politicians. This is not rocket science, folks. It's right there in the public record, just waiting to be exposed. Mike has taken stances on issues that are abhorrent to Democratic voters today, and not only on stop-and-frisk. There is a cornucopia of oppo research just waiting to be tapped, and it is downright pathetic that it took someone outside the mainstream media to even bother to look for any of it. Which brings up another point worth making. This audio only went viral when Donald Trump retweeted it. Donald Trump is doing more to knock Bloomberg off the pedestal his ads have constructed for him than any of Mike's Democratic opponents. That should be shameful to all the other campaigns, really. Trump is doing their job for them -- how sad is that?

At this point, the logical Democratic candidate to directly attack Bloomberg's ad blitz would be Joe Biden. This makes sense for a couple reasons. First, Biden has already shown that he's open to the idea of launching attack ads at other Democrats, after he released an ad absolutely ridiculing Pete Buttigieg, right before New Hampshire voted. Second, Biden is the one who could take the most umbrage at Bloomberg attempting to co-opt the Obama legacy. Biden could hit Bloomberg hard for taking unearned credit for the passage of Obamacare, and Joe could even get downright angry at that ad that implies Mike has Barack's full support. As with the anti-Pete ad, this wouldn't even cost a whole lot of money if it were to be released on the internet rather than in an extended television rollout. Not only would this hit Bloomberg on his specific claims (implied or explicit), but Bloomberg would also take a hit to his own credibility.

Whether this happens or not, I for one will be glad to see Michael Bloomberg in the next debate, which he seems about to qualify for (he's reportedly now gotten three of the four required polls above ten percent). But -- and here's a shocker -- he doesn't actually have to show up, even if he qualifies. That is what the other Democratic candidates should be worried about, not that he will actually be on the stage next to them. What if Bloomberg puts out a statement that says, in essence: "I don't feel welcome at the Democratic debates because all the other candidates have said that billionaires shouldn't be included"? That puts the onus on the other candidates for why Mike won't be there, which absolutely paints them into a corner.

Think about it -- with the enormous field of Democrats who ran in the 2020 race, we've already seen several millionaires essentially self-finance their own campaigns -- and none of them have gone anywhere yet. Anyone remember John Delaney? I didn't think so. Andrew Yang had a bit more success, and Tom Steyer is hoping for a splash in Nevada and South Carolina, but he may be hobbled by not qualifying for the next debate -- because all his money hasn't bought him enough support. Was there any outcry about any of them "buying their way in"? Maybe a bit, but it wasn't a big deal to any of the other candidates because none of these multimillionaires posed much of a political threat.

But Bloomberg is in a different category. He's not just rich, he's filthy rich. This means he has been able to -- in a very short time -- actually buy significant voter support, not just debate appearances. This means he cannot be ignored any longer. Or shouldn't be, at any rate.

Bloomberg could be on track to winning more delegates on Super Tuesday than Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren combined. This is in no way guaranteed, but it is now well within the realm of possibility. And one-third of the total delegates are handed out on Super Tuesday, meaning it will be almost impossible for any of those three to catch up with him, if it does happen. So why is everyone still ignoring Mike? Why is he still getting such a free pass?

How hard is it for the other candidates to detail a staffer to spend a couple of days digging through Google for embarrassing Bloomberg audio and video clips? Have they done any opposition research on him yet at all? If they wait until after Bloomberg surprises everyone on Super Tuesday, it may be too late. The window is closing fast on the opportunity to knock Bloomberg down a few pegs. One lone podcaster just proved how easy it is to do so. So what is everyone waiting for? Why does Bloomberg still enjoy such a free pass from both the media and from all the other candidates? Ignoring him is not working. His ad blitz is what is working. Precisely because it is out there everywhere and nobody else is even admitting it exists, much less countering any of it. This is why I will be not only happy but downright eager to see Michael Bloomberg on a debate stage next to Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and all the rest. Because then maybe that 800-pound gorilla will be cut down to size. At this point, it seems like nothing else is going to do the job.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

58 Comments on “Don't Let Bloomberg Have A Free Pass”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I suppose the next thing you'll try to claim is you have been giving One Demand a free pass.

    Nah.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There is only one thing that matters concerning Bloomberg- he is a big money candidate spending his own money to run his campaign.

    It's a shame that you have such a short attention span that you will not be able to read my comments from yesterday. You could use the help.

    There is no reason for Bloomberg to get any pass from the DNC whether he pays for it or gets it free.

    There is no reason for any of the big money candidates to get any kind of pass from the DNC.

    There is no.... ooops, attention span.

    Take a moment, count to ten, then start again.

    There is no reason that citizens should give a free pass to the big money candidates by voting for them.

    Your article is full of examples of things such as citizens making demands, admitting the Dem candidates are only halfheartedly mentioning the problem of money in politics and the candidates demanding that Bloomberg be in the debates.

    So why not try giving citizens the opportunity to demand from the DNC and the candidates that the candidates commit to run small donor only campaigns in the general election in order to qualify for the debates and earn our votes and make all the candidates make a REAL effort to take action now on the problem of big money in our political process?

    Why is this the only thing that can't be demanded?

    And no free pass for you on avoiding addressing this.

  3. [3] 
    dsws wrote:

    No, really -- that's what his ads do more than just subtly imply. ... One of his latest ads insinuates ...

    It would have been nice to have links, or at least unambiguous identification of which ad you're saying what about. I found one ad where he takes credit for a decrease in uninsured people in NYC during his time as mayor. I don't know whether that's true. But if it is, it's probably not mostly Obamacare. ACA was passed while Bloomberg was mayor, but (according to its Wikipedia article -- I haven't checked the sources) most of its provisions went into effect in 2014, which is after Bloomberg left office. NYC does have something called MetroPlus.

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bloomberg can't be as he says the one that can take on Trump if can't even take on the other Democrats.

    So there is no way he will "PULL A CW" and avoid the debates. :D

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I saw an ad a few weeks ago where Bloomberg said something about never taking any special interest money.

    Bloomberg is a special interest.

    The only thing more ridiculous is that the ad seems to be working.

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And let's stop giving the 40% of citizens that don't vote a free pass by only offering them big money candidates giving them an excuse to not vote.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: He's the guy who (somehow, inexplicably) got Obamacare passed. No, really -- that's what his ads do more than just subtly imply.

    Bloomberg is bombarding the TV airwaves in Texas too; however, I haven't seen anything like that insinuating he had anything to do with Obamacare. He's running an ad in Texas on heavy rotation where Obama does figure prominently, but he's discussing working with him on gun safety laws, improving education, and helping teens find good jobs, and it doesn't discuss the ACA.

    https://youtu.be/WYW6Efw8b5U

    Mike also, according to his ads, made New York City a paradise on Earth.

    New York City? Paradise? I haven't seen that one either.

    ... continued

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    ... continued

    One of his latest ads insinuates that Barack Obama has all but officially endorsed him.

    I must have missed that one too.

    I'm not making this stuff up -- it's out there for hundreds of millions of viewers to see.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/mikebloomberg

    The only ads I've seen are all at the link above.

    You're welcome. :)

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Whether this happens or not, I for one will be glad to see Michael Bloomberg in the next debate, which he seems about to qualify for (he's reportedly now gotten three of the four required polls above ten percent).

    Me too, but Bernie is accusing the DNC of bending the rules for Bloomberg and cheating out other candidates who dropped out long ago, and Bernie has his surrogates screaming loudly into microphones that the DNC is cheating him by allowing it. However, the DNC rules were made long ago... with a lot of input from Bernie, as you know. They don't want Bloomberg on stage, obviously, and Nina Turner is now referring to him as an "oligarch."

    But -- and here's a shocker -- he doesn't actually have to show up, even if he qualifies.

    Bernie would, of course, prefer that, and who knows who else on the debate stage wouldn't be glad to see him excluded?

    Don't Let Bloomberg Have A Free Pass

    This! Yes, sir, and I'll go you one better: Don't let any of them have a free pass. Elizabeth Warren pretty much gave Bernie a free pass in debate after debate, and what does she have to show for it?

    Bernie needs to stop whining about "millionaires and billionaires" -- oh, wait... scratch that. I forgot for a second that Bernie has redefined the "evildoers" in his purity test to be only "billionaires" now that he can't meet his own 30-plus-year-old purity test.

    Apologies:
    Must remember that millionaires are no longer evil.
    Must remember that millionaires are no longer evil.
    Must remember that millionaires are no longer evil.

    Where was I? Right! Bernie needs to quit the whining about the billionaire and having his surrogates refer to him as an "oligarch" and screaming loudly into microphones that he shouldn't be allowed on the debate stage and how Bernie is being cheated again. That's ridiculous! It appears not to have occurred to a single one of the "Berners" that Bernie spending decades claiming he would take on the evil super rich people and then whining about the DNC and Bloomberg being allowed on the debate stage is sending one bigly huge mixed message. Pick a lane.

    And not just Bernie... although he's the one who whines about millionaires and billionaires the most (oh, Hell... did it again, scratch millionaire because we are one), every single one of the candidates should get busy and start showing the public what Trump is going to drag out of each of their closets. Don't wait until it's too late to vet the other candidates. Don't let anyone have a free pass. No one.

    So to recap:

    * Every candidate needs to stop whining and walking around on eggshells; time to let the public know what you shouldn't be afraid to show now... that Trump isn't going to hold back on later.

    * You really want to prove who's the best candidate to take on a billionaire? Then Mike Bloomberg will be good practice.

    Time to get your Party started, Democrats. :)

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: At this point, the logical Democratic candidate to directly attack Bloomberg's ad blitz would be Joe Biden.

    The logical candidate is Joe Biden and not the guy claiming over and over ad nauseam he'll "stand up to the millionaires and billionaires"?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69w_CXFR7tE

    Pardon me for saying it, but Bernie also seems like a pretty logical candidate to take on the billionaire since he's been promising that very thing for 30 years. Fast forward to now, and all he's doing is whining about having to actually do it.

    Can't all those candidates see what good practice it would be to take on Bloomberg and how Mike is simply being kind enough to present them all with the opportunity? ;)

    Great column, CW.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    He's the guy who (somehow, inexplicably) got Obamacare passed. No, really -- that's what his ads do more than just subtly imply. Mike also, according to his ads, made New York City a paradise on Earth. One of his latest ads insinuates that Barack Obama has all but officially endorsed him.

    Hmmmmmm

    You mean... Bloomberg is LYING!!???

    And yet, you Democrats will vote for him for POTUS???

    So, in other words, lying doesn't bother ya'all at all, eh??

    :eyeroll:

    That should be shameful to all the other campaigns, really. Trump is doing their job for them -- how sad is that?

    Sad???

    It's HILARIOUS!!!!

    :D

    At this point, the logical Democratic candidate to directly attack Bloomberg's ad blitz would be Joe Biden. This makes sense for a couple reasons. First, Biden has already shown that he's open to the idea of launching attack ads at other Democrats, after he released an ad absolutely ridiculing Pete Buttigieg, right before New Hampshire voted.

    But!!! But!!! But!!!!

    Russ said that Democrats don't attack other Democrats.. That type of behavior is beneath those of purity of the driven snow..

    You MUST be wrong about that! :smirk: :D

    I was hoping for more commentary on Bloomberg as a CANDIDATE... Not a commentary on whether he should be in the debate or not..

    With all the baggage that Bloomberg has, do you think he will win the primary???

    What do you think of the idea that Democrats would, after castigating and demonizing billionaires to hell and back, actually support an old white guy billionaire as their chosen champion?

    Do you believe Democrats would just chuck out their integrity (such as it is) and their entire diversity platform out the window and choose an old white guy billionaire who has a record of racist comments??

    THOSE are the kinds of question I had hoped a commentary would have answered..

    Ah well... C'est la vie...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL, Liz, DSWS et al

    Bringing this forward because I would REALLY love to get yer input on it..

    Bonus points if you read the comments as well..

    After Attending a Trump Rally, I Now Know Democrats Have No Shot in 2020

    I’ve been a Democrat for 20 years, but my experience made me realize just how out-of-touch my party is with the country at large
    https://gen.medium.com/ive-been-a-democrat-for-20-years-here-s-what-i-experienced-at-trump-s-rally-in-new-hampshire-c69ddaaf6d07

    It's a refreshing screed from a real person who lays out everything wrong with the current Democrat Party FROM a life-long Democrat...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    I was also hoping you could address the fact that donors are now asking Biden to leave the race to give room for Bloomberg...

    Top financiers want Biden to drop out so Bloomberg can win: ’He has no chance’

    Billionaire hedge fund investor Leon Cooperman: 'I feel sorry for Biden' as the former VP loses momentum
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/wall-streets-message-to-biden-following-nyc-fundraiser-he-should-withdraw-he-has-no-chance

    Liz?? You want to take a crack at that too??

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is also talk of Bloomberg choosing Kamala I SLEPT MY WAY TO MY SENATE SEAT Harris or Deval I DON'T HAVE A CUTESY MIDDLE NAME FOR HIM BECAUSE HE IS A NOBODY Patrick to pander for the black American vote..

    Comments?? CW?? Buehler?? Anyone???

    These are the kinds of questions and issues that need to be addressed if ya'all want a viable nominee to take on President Trump..

    I have to be honest here and say that Bloomberg does have a chance of actually defeating President Trump..

    But it's STILL a win win for me.. If Democrats actually DO throw out their integrity and make a deal with the devil and nominate an old white guy billionaire as their champion???

    My gods, the gloating will be horrendous!! :D

    Oh yea... And let's see Bloomberg's tax returns for the past 10 years....

    Right???

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to be honest here and say that Bloomberg does have a chance of actually defeating President Trump..

    Let me qualify this...

    Bloomberg has the BEST chance of defeating President Trump, but it's still a small, small, VERY small chance...

    Why???

    The acolytes of Occasional Cortex and Bernie Bros simply will NOT vote for the old white guy billionaire who did nothing more than buy the Democrat nomination...

    As ya'all know, one of my superpowers is the ability to see both sides of any issue.. Up to the point of HHPTDS setting in, a few others here shared that trait..

    In any case, I can see Bloomberg being able to take down President Trump because Bloomberg appears to have the very rare ability to meet Trump on Trump's own chosen battlefield...

    In other words, Bloomberg CAN out Trump Trump...

    But on the flip side there is the afore mentioned issue of Occasional Cortex and The Squad's acolytes, Bernie Bros and nearly the entire progressive Left Wing who will be unlikely to support the old white guy billionaire who bought the Democrat nomination...

    So, we end up where we started...

    While Bloomberg has the BEST chance to take down President Trump, it's still a very VERY small chance...

    This is the kind of Bloomberg commentary I hope we see here..

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Whether or not Bloomberg can out Trump Trump, he is not the Dems best chance.

    Bloomberg may have had a chance in 2016 before people had already chosen Trump, but the people that are susceptible to Trump's brand of campaigning, lying and just generally being an asshole are already in Trump's camp for 2020. They are unlikely to switch to a Trump clone now.

    If anything Bloomberg as the candidate would cause more people to walkaway from the Democrats.

    I did read the article (no bonus points) and commented on it in yesterday's thread.

    Perhaps you could return the favor by commenting with your opinion on whether it would make a difference if the Dem nominee were to declare they were running a small donor only campaign for the general election.

    Maybe even which ones it might help (such as Bernie) and those that it wouldn't make a difference (like Bloomberg).

    But asking you to return the favor probably won't be enough to inspire you.

    But just think of how much you could gloat that you have given a real honest answer while the rest of the commenters and CW are cowering in fear of addressing this.

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    i read your article all the way through. before i discuss it though, i'd like you to read something else. don't worry, it's not anything particularly rabid, i just think it fills in some of the blanks your article leaves... well, blank.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/14/anti-populism-politics-why-champions-of-civility-keep-losing

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK It looks like I have some catching up to do..

    Let me take then in the order the were posted..

    DH,

    I did read the article (no bonus points) and commented on it in yesterday's thread.

    Perhaps you could return the favor by commenting with your opinion on whether it would make a difference if the Dem nominee were to declare they were running a small donor only campaign for the general election.

    Fair enough..

    Let me address your comments from yesterday first, then I'll give you my diplomatic opinion and then my honest opinion..

    Does the walkaway movement also consist of people that have walked away from the Republican Party?

    To the best of my knowledge, #WalkAway is strictly targeted at the Democrat Party. If there is a GOP version, I haven't heard of it..

    I mean, the GOP is already accused of being mean, nasty and intolerant.. :D

    But with Democrats, they put on airs that they are above that...

    The #WalkAway movement is made up of those former Democrats who found out that Democrats are as mean and nasty and intolerant as they accuse Republicans of being.

    If not it will be hard to take them seriously as anything other than a Republican organization.

    Except for the fact that the group is made up of FORMER Democrats...

    And President Trump is the proof that you are standing on your roof knee deep in the still rising water.

    On this I completely and utterly agree with you..

    The fact that President Trump was freely, fairly, legally, duly, democratically and Constitutionally elected as President PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt how far the Democrat Party had sunk under Obama..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps you could return the favor by commenting with your opinion on whether it would make a difference if the Dem nominee were to declare they were running a small donor only campaign for the general election.

    OK, my diplomatic opinion is 'YES' with a 'BUT'...

    The 'BUT' being is it could work if the whole Party would get on board..

    JL and I had a similar discussion in the past about Democrats practice what they preach.. It was regarding taxing millionaires and billionaires more.. I was of the opinion that the millionaires and billionaires who are Democrats should self-tax themselves if they honestly and truly believe they are not taxed enough..

    JL was of the mind that there is nothing wrong with doing things to your own advantage as long as it's within the rules.. Game the system in other words.

    (JL, feel free to correct me if I did not state your position accurately)

    By and large, politicians are still human beings with more flaws than non-politicians. As such, they will nearly ALWAYS do things that are first and foremost in their best interests..

    That is where you will run into problems with Party wide acceptance of One Demand... ESPECIALLY with the Democrat Party because the ENTIRE Party is made up of little fiefdoms, each one with their own self-interest that runs counter to all the other little fiefdoms and THEIR own self-interests...

    What was it that Will (Roy??) Rogers said??

    "I am not part of any organized Party. I am a Democrat..."

    That's the problem that One Demand cannot overcome in the here and now..

    So ends diplomacy.. Let's talk honestly

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Honestly speaking, OD does not stand a snowball's chance in hell..

    To support this I will paraphrase a quote (of all people) Barack Obama..

    "Democrats don't want massive overnight changes. They want their changes to be gradual, over time.."

    Or words to that effect...

    OD is a huge massive change that simply does not have clout to become Party wide or even Nation wide...

    Your best bet is to find an existing and established group that has similar goals that you have. Work your way into THAT system and then co-opt it for your own purposes..

    That would be the FASTEST way to achieve your ends.

    That's my honest opinion...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    i read your article all the way through. before i discuss it though, i'd like you to read something else. don't worry, it's not anything particularly rabid, i just think it fills in some of the blanks your article leaves... well, blank.

    It also leaves me somewhat confused...

    Clarify something for me..

    Is this YOUR argument?? Or simply a response to the article I posted??

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it's a response more than my own argument.

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Feel free to gloat.

    Yes, One Demand would work better if the whole party was on board. But as you said the Dems like to work in small steps.

    Bernie took a small step in 2016 with the small contribution campaign. In 2018 many Dem candidates followed suit.

    And a candidate like Bernie running a small donor only campaign in the general election would free up 2600 dollars that the big money Dem donors could send in small contributions to Dem Congressional and Senate candidates that follow suit and make the small donor commitment.

    And these donors could target districts where the residents don't have the financial resources to support a small donor only candidate and really help the people they claim they want to help.

    Of course not all big money Dem donors will do this as they only pretend to want to help the people that need it. But maybe there are enough that really do care and would recognize this is an opportunity to really help.

    So isn't ta presidential candidate taking the lead in a way a small step?

    As for finding other organizations that share the same goals, that's not a problem.

    The problem is they are all dedicated to the wrong approach to achieve the goals that cannot succeed.

    And while your point that the Democratic Party cannot get enough Democrats to work together on this common goal is correct, One Demand is not limited to just people in the Democratic Party.

    And it's not just for former Dems.

    And when those in the Democratic Party that want small donor only candidates get together with those not in the Democratic Party to make this demand then the Dems will have an incentive to run small donor only campaigns because they will need those votes.

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    You seem to endorse people making demands so now I have not just One Demand, but two demands.

    One Demand is still for the candidates.

    The second is for you. It is a demand to discuss One Demand.

    On primary night Tony Snark complained it was primary night and therefore was no time to be bothered with discussing One Demand.

    Actually, that is a great time to discuss One Demand.

    You are here commenting on the primary results and then waiting for more results to come in. While you are waiting we could have a back and forth on One Demand.

    So to clarify my demand- please commit to discussing this during the Nevada caucus or SC primary or pick a day and time before then where we can have a real discussion of One Demand.

    You are of course free to take another pass.

    But that will not get you free from clearly demonstrating that you are afraid to have an honest discussion on One Demand and afraid to face reality.

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    so, you're okay with someone spending tens of thousands of dollars in political donations, as long as it's to a few hundred different candidates? and not a single dollar for pie? dude, you're just hopeless.

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As Michale claims there are open minded commenters here, if there are any would you please comment on whether primary night is the time to discuss something like One Demand or not.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's a response more than my own argument.

    OK Here is what confuses me..

    I always thought that Democrats LIKED populist... Grass roots.. That sort of thing..

    The article you pointed out seems to say just the opposite.. That the ANTI populist, the ANTI Grass Root are the better way to go...

    Having said that, I DO see the danger of "mob rule".. But as long as the "mob" follows the decorum of common sense and ethical behavior, I submit that Mob Rule ain't so bad.. That it can actually succeed where Politics As Usual has failed..

    Both sides have their violent, intolerant and fringe elements..

    The problem I see here is that the Democrat Party doesn't acknowledge their fault in their fringe elements and refuses to condemn their fringe...

    But my point in bringing up the initial article is to counter the prevailing Weigantia opinion that everything is hunky dorky within the Democrat Party..

    It isn't.. The Party is losing members by the millions..

    Of course some will point to all the GOP retirements as a rebuttal.. But that's just a red herring.. The GOP'ers that are retiring are STILL GOP'ers..

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Yes. The big money interests work across district and state lines so why shouldn't small donor only supporters work across district, state and economic lines to help each other?

    And one thing I haven't given up yet is hope. :D

    If I had I would not be commenting here and would be part of the 40% that don't vote.

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    democrats are much broader and less organized around any one political philosophy than republicans. some are more populist, others less. as for decline in party identification, here's a graphic that shows the current distribution:

    https://www.people-press.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/03/PP_2019.03.14_Independents_0-01-1.png

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    you'd consider someone who spent 20,000 dollars a year on 100 different candidates to be a "small donor?"

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And that is the Dems biggest problem- they want people to either buy their bullshit or be part of the 40%.

    That is more important to Democrats than doing anything that might give the 40% hope again.

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    but someone who spends 500 dollars a year on one candidate is still "big money?"

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    That person is a small donor to each individual candidate.

    The people that can afford to contribute to many small donor only candidates can provide the financing that those without the financial resources can't provide. The people that can't provide the financial resources can provide the votes that the people that can afford to make many contributions to many candidates can't.

    Teamwork. While it is not perfect it is far better than what we are being offered now.

    I guess this shows One Demand does not quite meet purity standard that so many here claim after all.

    Thanks for helping to debunk that claim. :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Feel free to gloat.

    Never had a problem with that.. :D Some might even say it's my defining characteristic.. :D

    Yes, One Demand would work better if the whole party was on board. But as you said the Dems like to work in small steps.

    Yes, I said incremental steps are better But it also has it's detractors..

    Give you an example.. I'm fat.. I have tried many a diet plan (mostly of my own design) but I could never see any good lasting result so I give up.. I have NO will power when it comes to eating and drinking..

    I have accepted that and just go with the status quo..

    So it is with political incremental steps.. Change is hard.. Even small 1-pnd lost have no real effect because it's hard to celebrate the 1-pnd loss one day when you simply gain it back the next...

    Political people in general and Democrats in particular want it all and they want it now..

    They don't have time for baby steps so, if the baby steps doesn't show real fast that they are ADULT steps, then people just give up and accept the status quo..

    That is why Bernie is so popular.. He feeds the people who demand radical change..

    The fact that there is no way in hell that Bernie can make those changes is irrelevant.. They believe that he can do it so they vote for him..

    By the time they found out Bernie was full of kaa-kaa it's too late..

    As I said, yer best bet would be to co-op an existing group that is established and is similar to what you want, work your way up and slowly maneuver it to One Demand..

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that being the case, i think the distinction between cake and pie makes a lot more sense.

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Yes. That person is a big money donor to a candidate that takes big money.

    There is no need for a candidate to take more than 200 dollars, the COMMON threshold for the definition of a small donor.

    So any person supporting a big money candidate with contributions over 200 dollars is a big money donor whether it is one candidate or many.

    You must be running out of straws by now.

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    oooooh.

    I was typing 36 while 35 was being posted.

    Do I get credit for making a correct prediction? :D

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'm responding because i'm sick and bored. as much as i'd like to see your idea grow and succeed, that would take a level of introspection you've yet to demonstrate. if it helps, i'd vote for you before i'd vote for mike bloomberg.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm responding because i'm sick and bored.

    Dood!! What's wrong??

    if it helps, i'd vote for you before i'd vote for mike bloomberg.

    But would you vote for Trump before you would vote for Bloomberg?? :D

    Bloomberg's anti gun hysteria disqualifies him to be POTUS, IMNSHO....

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But would you vote for Trump before you would vote for Bloomberg?? :D

    yes, but only because i honor my wagers.

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    nothing fancy, just a cold and i think a sinus infection. going to pay the doctor a visit in a bit.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, but only because i honor my wagers.

    You are a true man of integrity...

    nothing fancy, just a cold and i think a sinus infection. going to pay the doctor a visit in a bit.

    Not fun.. Hope it gets better.

    I am back on bed restriction ... My sternum didn't fuse back together properly.. Now it's just 2 titanium plates and 4 zip ties that are holding my rib cage closed...

    Gonna have to go back under the knife, but I can't do that until the second week of April.. So I am loaded up with pain pills until then..

    Hope ya get better soon, dood..

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yikes, sounds like a world of hurt.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    yikes, sounds like a world of hurt.

    Only when I sneeze.. Or cough... Or lift something.. Or talk... Or move... Or breathe...

    :^/

  45. [45] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Well I guess somebody has to be the port when it's any port in a storm.

    I feel I have demonstrated a lot of introspection about One Demand.

    There has not been much introspection from others here on One Demand. Mostly just excuses to avoid introspection or suggestions to do things I have already done, that will not work or would be against what One Demand is trying to do.

    But thank you for saying you would like the idea to grow and succeed.

    Getting some real introspection from CW would help.

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    So far Michale has said that One Demand could work and Nypoet has said he would like to see One Demand grow and succeed.

    There is still time for others to comment but that is two "primary" results that could easily be interpreted as wins for me.

    Doesn't the current front runner deserve some attention? :D

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Is there a wager I could make with you where if I win you join me in demanding that CW address One Demand if I win and I continue to remain persistent in my demand on my own if you win? :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Biden wants to salvage ANYTHING of his political legacy..

    His best course of action would be to drop out of the race..

    Don't get me wrong.. The more things are frak'ed up for the Democrat Party, the better I like it. :D

    But, as always, I gotta call 'em as I see 'em...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    A PRESIDENT SO UNHINGED THAT EVEN BILL BARR SAYS HE’S OUT OF CONTROL

    Welcome to the post-acquittal Trump Presidency.
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/donald-trump-a-president-so-unhinged-that-even-bill-barr-says-hes-out-of-control

    Of course, AG Barr said nothing of the sort... But why let FACTS ruin a perfectly hysterical Democrat rant..

    :eyeroll:

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump is not moving on. He is not getting over it.

    Have hysterical Trump/America haters moved on?? Have they gotten over a free, fair, legal, democratic and Constitutional election that swept Trump into office??

    Of course they haven't..

    So why would this bimbo expect President Trump to get over their faux impeachment coup???

    The level of alarm about Trump’s post-acquittal rampage has been predictably high—five-alarm-fire, red-siren-for-our-democracy high.

    How can you tell?? Democrats have ALWAYS been at a "high—five-alarm-fire, red-siren-for-our-democracy high"....

    In the intelligence community (at least in the 80s when I was part of it) radio traffic was constant.. When ever there was REAL messages to send, they were interspersed with "white noise." This way the radio traffic was at a constant level, therefore denying the enemy of a notice of some impending action..

    Democrats have seem to taken that procedure to heart.. Which is why most REAL and PATRIOTIC Americans ignore the Democrat Party..

    It's all just meaningless noise..

    Trump may have gone too far even for one of his most stalwart loyalists.

    Facts to support??? None??

    Like I said.. Just meaningless noise..

    The answer, I’m afraid, is yes. In his post-impeachment rage, Trump wanted vengeance, and he wanted us to know it. There was no one inside his Administration to stop him. A month ago, Congress had at least the theoretical power to do something about his overreaching. Today, thanks to the Senate’s very clear vote, it does not.

    You mean thanks to the Democrats' very clear incompetence..

    Democrats claimed to have CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL evidence that PROVED President Trump's guilt beyond a doubt..

    And they couldn't even get a conviction on the lame, non-criminal, generic CATCH-ALL non-crimes??

    How sad and pathetic is that???

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Will impeachment play in November?

    The Democrats who impeached President Trump knew they did not have a prayer of removing him from office, but they also knew impeachment might have another effect: to weaken the president and reduce his chances of winning reelection in November.

    It was an unprecedented plan, an election-year gambit in which Democrats used the House of Representatives's constitutional power of impeachment as perhaps the most audacious opposition research maneuver of all time.

    But will it work? One: Will voters even remember impeachment when Election Day comes around in nine months? And two: If they do, which way will impeachment cut? Will it help Democrats or help the president?

    It is often remarked that news is happening at a never-before-seen pace in Trump's Washington. A story that in an earlier era might dominate coverage for weeks is supplanted by an equally big story a day later and by another a day after that. It can all blend together and fade in the voters' minds.

    On the other hand, impeachment was big, and. even if it does fade from memory, Trump appears determined to keep it alive.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/will-impeachment-play-in-november

    I imagine that Democrats would just like to forget the faux impeachment coup..

    President Trump is NOT going to let that happen. :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Border Patrol Will Deploy Elite Tactical Agents to Sanctuary Cities

    The Trump administration is deploying law enforcement tactical units from the southern border as part of a supercharged arrest operation in sanctuary cities across the country, an escalation in the president’s battle against localities that refuse to participate in immigration enforcement.

    The specially trained officers are being sent to cities including Chicago and New York to boost the enforcement power of local ICE officers, according to two officials who are familiar with the secret operation. Additional agents are expected to be sent to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, Detroit and Newark, N.J.

    The move reflects President Trump’s persistence in cracking down on sanctuary cities, localities that have refused to cooperate in handing over immigrants targeted for deportation to federal authorities. It comes soon after the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security announced a series of measures that will affect both American citizens and immigrants living in those places.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/border-patrol-will-deploy-elite-tactical-agents-to-sanctuary-cities/ar-BB100Ejr

    Gotta give President Trump credit..

    He does nothing half-assed :D

    There will be NO sanctuary for illegal immigrant criminals in Sanctuary cities...

    It's THAT simple.. :D

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Read your article After Attending a Trump Rally, I Now Know Democrats Have No Shot in 2020 and the comment section and, honestly, I don’t buy it. The author shows great wisdom in admitting that many Republicans are great people who are not Nazi’s and who truly love this country. But in the next breath she lumps all Democrats into a monolith — which makes no sense from someone that supposedly just became woke to the fact that political stereotypes are wrong! How odd for someone to realize that the Republicans — whom she “never” liked — are really great folks, unlike the Democrats who are all horrible people suddenly!

    She started off talking about people attacking knitters online, but never bothers to offer why they were being attacked or any evidence as to how she knew it was Democrats attacking them. That Democrats demand purity, but Republicans are so welcoming to different opinions!?!? Do the names Mitt Romney or Justin Amash sound familiar?

    And WTF that YOU would post this??!! YOU, who constantly claims to know what every Democrat thinks or believes — because anyone who disagrees with you (actually, it’s not what you think, but whatever Trump tells you that you think) all share the same views on every subject matter.

    As someone who did switch parties in 2008, this article is nothing more than Republican propaganda — sadly, it is dishonest.

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “Elite” ICE agents? Elite? Really? This from an agency that the majority of its employees are individuals who were rejected by local police departments...gotta love that!

    If they want to deport illegals, they should start at Trump’s properties...

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    26

    As Michale claims there are open minded commenters here, if there are any would you please comment on whether primary night is the time to discuss something like One Demand or not.

    Honestly, Don, it's an answer as easy as pie:

    On primary night, you wanted to discuss it, and CW didn't.
    Weigantia is CW's world, and everyone else is just living in it.

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    32

    but someone who spends 500 dollars a year on one candidate is still "big money?"

    More important queries in need of a response:

    * What are the limits on the ratio of a pie's circumference to its diameter?

    * How much do I have to spend in order to be considered big pie... because who would want to be called a small pie? :)

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    A blogger of lesser patience and integrity would have just booted the offender and banned his IP address. I suspect that like myself cw has a soft spot for hopeless causes.

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    57

    I hear you. :)

Comments for this article are closed.