While this is true I'm not sure how you do a direct presidential election in a two party environment which isn't functionally FPTP
2020 US Election (Part One)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
While this is true I'm not sure how you do a direct presidential election in a two party environment which isn't functionally FPTP
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
55% is a majority, just sayin'.
You may have noticed the discussion was on the electoral college, surely that tells you what result we were discussing . . .
That said, why pretend you care about pluralities or majorities in the first place, you suggested that Michelle Obama, with zero votes, is handed the nomination
That said, why pretend you care about pluralities or majorities in the first place, you suggested that Michelle Obama, with zero votes, is handed the nomination
Dude, check this out, this newspaper from 2016 says that Donald Trump won the election that year!
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Bloomberg is a disgusting man
Bernie is long overdue in switching his rhetoric a bit, no? The New Deal is alright - but there was also the Great Society, New Frontiers. He can turn this around by basically saying 'Nothing I say is Pie-in-the-sky. It is the norm in Europe. In Canada. Australia. 600 million people enjoy the 'pie in the sky', but we don't. We were on the same path before, but we were waylaid and misled, and got lost. Of course it's going to be a lot of work finding the trail again, the same trail the other first world nations took, and it'll get harder the more and more we wait and daddle and ignore it, but it is a road we took, a road we can take yet again'.
Free to use, Bernie.
Free to use, Bernie.
The larger point here is that the given barb is incredibly lame. Nirvana as a happy band?
Perhaps, but perhaps not. I've lived 12 years under Bloomberg, he was a man who spins good PR. Everything bad he did? 200 MILES OF BIKE LANES AND HIS BILINGUALISM. This barb of his, if it is a reported, may land him as a dull dud, but it does get the point across: the common criticism that Bernie IS advocating the Pie-in-the-sky.
It is better for Bernie to keep on hammering that the US has a lot of work to do, has to refocus, has to take its eyes and work off fear-mongering border work and a bloated military, and work for these 'pie-in-the-sky' programmes that are done everywhere else in the first world.
Super delegates were given the input in the process because the party was afraid of populism from the '68 or '72 DNC, I forget which. Around that time.
Erm, they do have a song that starts with ‘I'm so happy’.
Mike Bloomberg’s election spending spree tells an ugly story
Arwa Mahdawi
The former mayor of New York is the first billionaire to try to buy his way to being president – but he won’t be the last
Just how much does it cost to buy the US presidency? $800m? A billion? A couple of billion?
It looks as if Michael Bloomberg is trying to find out. Since entering the race in November, he has spent an unprecedented amount of money trying to win the Democratic nomination. In less than three months, Bloomberg, who is worth about $60bn (£46bn), has spent about $320m on TV advertising alone – more than double the amount Tom Steyer, the other billionaire running and the second-biggest spender, has shelled out on ads. Since January, Bloomberg has spent more on Facebook ads than Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren combined.
His strategy (spend, spend, spend and see what sticks) seems to be paying off. He has surged to third place in some opinion polls, despite skipping Iowa and New Hampshire, and has been racking up endorsements from people including the mayor of Washington DC and the former ABC News anchor Sam Donaldson. It is still early, but he may be the candidate who faces Donald Trump in the general election.
If these two billionaires end up battling it out for the presidency, I am not sure it matters who wins in November. Democracy will have lost. We will have entered a new age of American oligarchy. A dangerous precedent will have been set. Money and politics will become even more intertwined. We might not see a non-billionaire become president again for a very long time.
“Better Bloomberg than Trump!” some will protest. There is a strand of thinking among many liberals that it doesn’t matter who beats Trump, or how, just as long as they beat him. Bloomberg has his flaws, the logic goes, but he is exponentially better than Trump. Sure, he has spearheaded racist policies such as stop-and-frisk, but he has also spent lots of money tackling gun violence and the climate crisis. And, unlike the reality TV star ruining the country, Bloomberg has political experience. Indeed, as a former mayor of New York City (population 8.5 million), he is far more qualified for the job than Buttigieg, the ex-mayor of South Bend, Indiana (population 102,000).
Whether Bloomberg is a “better” billionaire than Trump is not the point. Democracy is broken if someone can parachute into an election at the last minute and spend unlimited amounts – there are no restrictions on self-financing – transforming themselves into a viable candidate. Democracy is broken when a billionaire can, as Bernie Sanders put it, attempt to “buy this election”.
Some may argue that buying a ton of ads is not the same as buying an election, particularly as the outsized influence of money in US politics is nothing new. According to a 2014 study by two political scientists, “economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy”, while average people “have little or no independent influence”. Is there much difference between a billionaire self-funding and a candidate raising money from billionaires?
Yes. I don’t think you can underestimate the optics of Bloomberg’s unapologetic spending spree. It lifts the veil on money in politics. It sends a dispiriting message to an already disillusioned electorate that politics is a swamp where ordinary people are not represented and where influence is bought. Even if Bloomberg doesn’t win the nomination, it seems inevitable that his success so far will pave the way for more billionaires. Bezos 2024? Zuckerberg 2028? It looks increasingly likely.
Arwa Mahdawi
The former mayor of New York is the first billionaire to try to buy his way to being president – but he won’t be the last
Just how much does it cost to buy the US presidency? $800m? A billion? A couple of billion?
It looks as if Michael Bloomberg is trying to find out. Since entering the race in November, he has spent an unprecedented amount of money trying to win the Democratic nomination. In less than three months, Bloomberg, who is worth about $60bn (£46bn), has spent about $320m on TV advertising alone – more than double the amount Tom Steyer, the other billionaire running and the second-biggest spender, has shelled out on ads. Since January, Bloomberg has spent more on Facebook ads than Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren combined.
His strategy (spend, spend, spend and see what sticks) seems to be paying off. He has surged to third place in some opinion polls, despite skipping Iowa and New Hampshire, and has been racking up endorsements from people including the mayor of Washington DC and the former ABC News anchor Sam Donaldson. It is still early, but he may be the candidate who faces Donald Trump in the general election.
If these two billionaires end up battling it out for the presidency, I am not sure it matters who wins in November. Democracy will have lost. We will have entered a new age of American oligarchy. A dangerous precedent will have been set. Money and politics will become even more intertwined. We might not see a non-billionaire become president again for a very long time.
“Better Bloomberg than Trump!” some will protest. There is a strand of thinking among many liberals that it doesn’t matter who beats Trump, or how, just as long as they beat him. Bloomberg has his flaws, the logic goes, but he is exponentially better than Trump. Sure, he has spearheaded racist policies such as stop-and-frisk, but he has also spent lots of money tackling gun violence and the climate crisis. And, unlike the reality TV star ruining the country, Bloomberg has political experience. Indeed, as a former mayor of New York City (population 8.5 million), he is far more qualified for the job than Buttigieg, the ex-mayor of South Bend, Indiana (population 102,000).
Whether Bloomberg is a “better” billionaire than Trump is not the point. Democracy is broken if someone can parachute into an election at the last minute and spend unlimited amounts – there are no restrictions on self-financing – transforming themselves into a viable candidate. Democracy is broken when a billionaire can, as Bernie Sanders put it, attempt to “buy this election”.
Some may argue that buying a ton of ads is not the same as buying an election, particularly as the outsized influence of money in US politics is nothing new. According to a 2014 study by two political scientists, “economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy”, while average people “have little or no independent influence”. Is there much difference between a billionaire self-funding and a candidate raising money from billionaires?
Yes. I don’t think you can underestimate the optics of Bloomberg’s unapologetic spending spree. It lifts the veil on money in politics. It sends a dispiriting message to an already disillusioned electorate that politics is a swamp where ordinary people are not represented and where influence is bought. Even if Bloomberg doesn’t win the nomination, it seems inevitable that his success so far will pave the way for more billionaires. Bezos 2024? Zuckerberg 2028? It looks increasingly likely.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Yea, well in his defense his base isn't even going to remember who Nirvana was. . . Its ok though neither is Bernie's because they are too young.
But...but...but...the USA are special! All these nice things won't work there because..., well because!
Regarding the plurality argument: In a democratic system, someone receiving a plurality usually needs to build a coalition to get a majority. If Sanders gets a plurality, he should have the first opportunity to secure a majority for him. But if he fails to do so and someone else does, it is still a legitimate election. Receiving a plurality should never make you the automatic winner.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
I'm not certain anything other than stacking the supreme court to fix citizens United is going to stop this problem short of a revolution. It's also why I am quickly coming to the conclusion that four more years of teeth gnashing at Trump would be better then the thin veneer of bull Bloomberg puts on basically the same policies.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
You speak for yourself only.
Yeah pretty much. I don't know how the pledged delegates of candidates who drop out get reallocated, but whether they're directed by someone or free, I tend to think if Sanders gets a substantial lead in delegates he'll peel plenty from most other candidates, enough to get him over the line. There are clearly plenty of voters for the other candidates who are fine with him, and more Dem voters say they're comfortable or enthusiastic about him than anyone else apparently.
Last edited:
- Status
