Spurminator are you seriously trying to argue the DNC isn’t showing clear favoritism pedaling Bloomberg as a candidate it would prefer?
Bloomberg Surrogates Have Seats on DNC Rules Committees
https://truthout.org/articles/bloomb...es-committees/
Tulsi Gabbard slams DNC kowtow to Bloomberg as 'wrong,' calls for a 'straightforward' process
The DNC recently decided to eliminate its controversial fundraising requirement for candidates to qualify for the debate stage.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/tulsi-...shire-election
Tlaib: DNC rules committee members working on Bloomberg campaign is a 'conflict of interest'
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ules-committee
Sanders blasts DNC rules that could allow Bloomberg to debate
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...berg-to-debate
Spurminator are you seriously trying to argue the DNC isn’t showing clear favoritism pedaling Bloomberg as a candidate it would prefer?
Ugh yeah maybe it's preferable to suffer another 4 years of Trump vs a potential 8 years of Bloomberg
I'm not convinced he even wants to debate. The DNC allowing him onto the debate stage could actually work against him since he'd have to face questions from his opponents/moderators and would be the clear right-of-center outsider.
Lol. That's also pretty rich coming from a super Mario mushroom
I guess it’s easy to convince yourself that the DNC isn’t helping Bloomberg if you claim “I think that might actually hurt Bloomberg!” in response to someone pointing out a clear example of the DNC helping Bloomberg.
The rule change came right after he made a contribution to the DNC. It was an obvious quid pro quo. Whether or not being on the debate stage actually helps or hurts him is a moot point. He made a donation to the DNC to get his rule change and they gave it to him.
Last week, the DNC eliminated the individual-donor threshold for candidates to qualify for future debates, paving the way for Bloomberg to appear at the next debate, which will be held on Feb. 19 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The change came directly from Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee members did not give any input or hold a vote, according to multiple people close to the matter. Sources reported that the decision was announced without a roll call vote of the around 430 DNC national members, most of whom learned about the change for the first time in the media.
Bloomberg donated $320,000 to the DNC on Nov. 19, 2019 in three donations of $106,500, as well as $800,000 that same day to a joint fundraising PAC between the DNC and state Democratic parties. It was Bloomberg’s first donation to the DNC since 1998, reporter Alex Kotch found, noting that the DNC’s $28.3 raised in the fourth quarter of 2019 lagged far behind the $72.3 million brought in by the Republican National Committee.
Leading DNC members have been critical of the party’s commitment to transparency and its ethics policies for lobbyists under Perez, who beat out progressive then-Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) in February 2017 in the race for chair. The superdelegate rules changes for 2020 were part of a package of reforms advanced by the Unity Reform Commission after the compromised 2016 presidential primary.
https://truthout.org/articles/bloomb...es-committees/
We don't live in a democracy when the ONLY 2 political parties can change their rules at the drop of a hat and without any questioning.
We are basically communist china if communist china had 2 parties instead of 1 tbqh
anytime someone tell me "but china is a dictatorship" I remind them of the DNC, RNC shams
I didn't make any argument I just wanted to know how the DNC was pushing him. I'm aware of the rule change but all this has done is put a bigger target on his back, so I guess I don't see it the same way you do.
He's risen to third on the strength of his advertising efforts, he doesn't need debates. He'd be better off avoiding them.
And I don't want to sound like a Bloomberg apologist either. I've pretty much settled on Sanders even though I'm not on board with all of his economic policies. But similar to Bloomberg, I don't expect his worst inclinations to be an issue in a three-branch system. Ultimately the most important next step for Dems is to take steps through election security, redistricting, the EC and statehood to ensure someone like Donald Trump won't be on the ticket for a major party in the future. Where Bloomberg and Sanders are similar is they hate Trump and I expect they will be very happy to undo as much of the past 4 years as possible.
you seriously think someone can become nominee without 1 single debate?
Neither of us has anything but assumptions right now. You're assuming a $300K donation is enough for the DNC to change its rules, and by doing so it means that they want Bloomberg to be the nominee.
I'm glad Bloomberg is helping to fund Democratic candidates. I wish he'd do so without being a candidate himself, but maybe we're headed that way eventually anyway.
You’d think the s at the DNC could shake Bloomberg down for more money before bending over for him. Only a few hundred thousand
If Bloomberg becomes the leader of the DNC we have two factions of one party.
Bloomberg hates Sanders and Warren for proposing a wealth tax, the Trump hate is an act.
My point exactly. You'd think if it was quid pro quo they would have gotten more.
The fundraising requirement was never intended to be in place for all of the debates.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ebates-1170182
That's a very expensive act. Would be cheaper just to fund Trump's campaign and anti-Sanders/Warren ads.
Right since the DNC has demonstrated such an amazing ability to raise money and manage it properly. Not a chance they’d ever something finance related up!
The idea that he hates Trump doesn't make much sense with the amount of money he dumped into Toomey's election bid. It's not like people couldn't see what kind of leader Trump would be from the beginning.
No guaranties that sabotages them. If Bloomberg ends up running as a third party after dumping a bunch of money into ads to get name recognition as a moderate Democrat it all but ensures a Sanders/Warren loss.
Which is exactly what I think this Bloomberg run is about.
Trump himself might have even lost PA if not for all the money Bloomberg dumped into the state in 2016 to drive Republican turnout.
He’d also be doing a lot more to defeat Trump if he really hated him that much. He could be the Democrat equivalent of the Koch Brothers with his resources but he’s only spending money on himself.
This is nothing more than a measuring contest between two billionaires who used to be golfing buddies.
The Toomey thing is a stretch in relation to Donald Trump. This was 2016. Did Bloomberg donate to Donald Trump's campaign that year?
Is that what you think is going to happen? I guess I'd understand the concern more if you really think he's going to run 3rd party but I don't see that happening. He'll drop out eventually (unless he wins, which I still think is a possibility), endorse the more conservative Dem candidate, and I expect he'll eventually endorse whoever gets the Democrat nomination. We'll see though.
So you're arguing driving turnout for Toomey wasn't going to drive it for Trump too?
I refuse to believe someone as smart as Bloomberg didn’t understand how pouring money into a swing state Republican senate candidate might indirectly help Trump get elected.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)