What Have We Learned?

The billionaire Michael Bloomberg is a world-famous former three-term mayor (and wealthiest resident) of America’s principal city. He also commands a global media empire. He just spent half a billion dollars in an attempt to win the coming election, and accomplished nothing more than to win a primary in American Samoa.

So: next time you hear someone whingeing about “money in politics” or Citizens United v. FEC, you can point this out. The same goes for that “Russia hijacked the 2016 election” nonsense: even at the upper limit of what the Russians are alleged to have spent to buy media influence, it was a hundredth of what Bloomberg shelled out.

There is no question that it costs money to run a political campaign, but the idea that there is any dependable linear correlation between money spent and votes cast should, at this point, be revealed as obvious nonsense. It should also be seen, by any self-respecting voter, as a patronizing insult.

15 Comments

  1. Biff says

    And I’ll bet there are a few nervous folks on the top floors of the big ad agencies right now.

    Posted March 5, 2020 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
  2. Jason says

    It was a bit much, the endless advertisements on Facebook and the like. I’m sure many had the sort of reaction I did: “Please Mr. Bloomberg, can I just watch old MTV videos on YouTube in peace?”

    Posted March 5, 2020 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
  3. Behind Enemy Lines says

    Not persuaded. I accept that money is not enough, but enough money is usually enough. Bloomberg spent his money foolishly. JFK’s dad spent his money wisely. You can ‘buy’ an election, especially the sort of state-level elections that Soros buys, but you also need to be good at operating the relevant election machine.

    Posted March 5, 2020 at 6:02 pm | Permalink
  4. Malcolm says

    Fair points, BEL.

    The times were quite different in 1960, though. The media were a narrow, top-down system where influence could be wielded vertically without horizontal competition, and campaign laws were far looser. It was harder for back-room influence to see the light of day (though we can be quite sure that much of it still doesn’t).

    And yes, Bloomberg truly beclowned himself here. How much of a bubble so you have to live in to think that it’s a good idea to run gun-grab ads during the Super Bowl?

    As I said in my last paragraph: money still matters, and you won’t rise to high office without it. But “the idea that there is any dependable linear correlation between money spent and votes cast should, at this point, be revealed as obvious nonsense.”

    Posted March 5, 2020 at 9:28 pm | Permalink
  5. Jacques says

    Is it absurd paranoia to think (as I do half-think) that this is all part of a larger scheme? Bloomberg gets in there for five minutes, then drops out, along with others all playing roles designed to deliver the intended “democratic” result of Biden? I don’t know. Maybe that’s crazy…

    Posted March 5, 2020 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
  6. Malcolm says

    Hi Jacques,

    I rather doubt that Bloomberg was taking orders — he is a party outsider, and rich enough to do what he likes — but one never knows. I do think some of the others, in particular Buttigieg and Klobuchar, were informed that it was time to get out of the way.

    Posted March 5, 2020 at 9:43 pm | Permalink
  7. JK says

    And, lest we forget there’s been, aside from the Russians of course …

    http://malcolmpollack.com/2018/03/21/facebook-trump-obama-and-the-persistent-fallacy-of-media-hypocrisy/

    Posted March 6, 2020 at 12:15 am | Permalink
  8. Thurgood says

    Bloomberg’s objective was to backstop Biden and prevent a Biden slip from throwing Sanders into a lead that would force an embarassing convention operation or worse. He hedged and in no way played to win. 500 M is not pocket money, but a small price to pay when preventing a popular insurgency as an oligarch worth 120x that amount.

    Posted March 6, 2020 at 12:24 am | Permalink
  9. Behind Enemy Lines says

    Fair points in turn, Malcolm. My hunch is that the reason why the Soros crowd are buying up state AGs and DAs is partly because the difficulty and cost of buying up ‘normal’ politicians is getting out of hand. The problem with that approach — which they will eventually learn — is that state AGs and DAs can’t so easily hide from the people who are hurt by their corruption.

    Posted March 6, 2020 at 12:30 am | Permalink
  10. John Hoinowski says

    Bloomberg’s money bought Virginia and now its on the road to becoming NJ,NY, Cal take your pick. It seems to me he just didn’t scale things effectively.

    Posted March 6, 2020 at 8:37 am | Permalink
  11. Malcolm says

    Thurgood,

    Bloomberg’s objective was to backstop Biden and prevent a Biden slip from throwing Sanders into a lead that would force an embarassing convention operation or worse.

    Sorry, but I think that’s far too altruistic. I think this run was purely a matter of colossal, plutocratic vanity.

    Posted March 6, 2020 at 8:43 am | Permalink
  12. JK says

    http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/2020/03/bloomberg-meme-dump.html

    Posted March 6, 2020 at 11:35 am | Permalink
  13. epicaric says

    John H. –
    Bloomberg’s money may have been spent freely in Virginia, but Virginia’s fate was sealed years before when we as Americans convinced ourselves that we would remain we, as we slowly became them. Less obtusely, it was our naive notion that we could import peoples drastically different from ourselves, and remain as we were.

    Posted March 7, 2020 at 6:45 am | Permalink
  14. Lacanders says

    Money doesn’t buy elections but it does buy politicians, which is a pretty big problem, no?

    Posted March 11, 2020 at 6:13 pm | Permalink
  15. Malcolm says

    Lacander,

    Money buys people. Always has, always will.

    Posted March 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*