He can use his money to dominate any media is the point I'm drawing out of this.

But if it isn't importaint than why do campaigns spend 70 to 80% of thier money on tv ads (that might be tv and radio combined, memory is getting old)? Those video clips of Biden would have worked on tv, too, and probably even been seen by more people than the self selecting groups in social media.

Money out of political campaigns is the only way.

Because we can't compete at 35 bucks a pop. The math just isnt there.

@1of5 It most certainly IS there. Sanders had raised more $$ than any other Democratic candidate and is giving Trump a run for his money as well. He has more donors than any candidate in history. Millions of donors at $35 or whatever vs one guy investing millions. It's also a function of how it's spent. People power!

The Sanders campaign set a goal of personally calling on 5 million households before the Iowa caucuses. They reached it yesterday and reset the goal to 10 million. They've got volunteers coming in from all over the midwest to spend a few days in Iowa helping out. You cannot substitute mere $$ for that kind of dedication and enthusiasm for a candidate.

The irony is that the elites never have had any actual power, we ordinary folk have just ceded it to them. But that is changing, and fast.

@mordant dude, drop the Bernie bot crap for a minute and do some math. 5 million people at 35 bucks a pop is 175M. Bern hasn't raised nearly that (his best 1/4 yet was 25M bringing him in at under 100M for a year), and his average donation was, i think, 20 not 35. Bloomberg has already spent 238M on tv alone, plus donated another 10M to other candidates. He doesn't need donors at all so while bernie #'s look great they actually mean jack shit where money is concerned. Also, that's Bernie total "war chest" that everything needs to be paid from, not just tv ads. Bloomberg has a couple billion laying around to spend, essentially.

I'd rather have a paid, competent staff than a bunch of volunteers any day of the election. Enthusiasm is great, and necessary, but consistancy from low turnover is much, much more efficient and well worth the money spent.

Bloomberg is already advertising against Trump instead of other dems in states dems or repubs haven't been doing anything in yet - both are focused on the early, small states that have more prestige than votes. Dems are bickering and attacking each other, turning people away from that proccess and giving them a damned good reason to look outside of the typical proccess. Bloomberg is right to let the dems fight amongst themselves in a bunch of small battles while Mike is defining the whole battlefield for the ensuing war.

It is how the money is spent, and running a campaign is a lot like running a business - unfortunatly being a public official is not - and one thing a sucessful businessman can do is run a business, while what we'd consider a good public official typically can't run one nearly as well.

Most folks don't vote, if they did things would be quite different. But why they don't is a whole nother issue.

@1of5 I am not a "Bernie bot" and what I said is not crap. You didn't effectively address any of my actual points. But I'll refrain from terming you a "Bloomberg bot". Do carry on.

Rhetorical question: how is anyone to prefer Sanders as a candidate without being equated with a mindless automaton? And how do people prefer other candidates and elude such appellations?

Let's see how Sanders and Bloomberg are doing in 3 month's or 6 month's time, shall we? They couldn't be more opposite ideologically. Oligarch vs populist; raw $$ vs movement politics. To date, in America anyway, no one in the last half century at least has won on a positive populist platform, and no billionaire has been able to buy his way to the presidency. I know which outcome I'm rooting for.

@1of5 I have been a Bernie volunteer, thankyuvurrymuch, and met many, and your ASSessment of our energy & competence vs. Paid Drones is just idiotic!

@mordant so 2 paragraphs about Sanders and no one else makes you a what, then? You can use the whole dem field instead of Bernie as an example and you wouldnt look like a bot- in fact I wish you would so we can compaire real numbers.

Kinda funny I post a negative about Bloomberg but you'll call me a Bloomberg bot. Rubber and glue level of discourse, there.

I did address your points, what little ones of no substance you actually made.

Bernie isn't running against Trump atm, he's running against dems. Just fyi, EVERY dem in the race is beating Trump in the polls.

We will see how thier doing in several months time. Trump not a populist? Really? I thought you wanted to be taken seriously.

@AnneWimsey You can just call me an ass. I'd actually respect that.

I didn't ask you to volanteer, but thanks I guess. I didn't say paid drones jesusfuckingchrist. I said a paid, stable staff instead of a rotating bunch of volunteers. Huge difference there.

@1of5 I did not say Trump was not a populist.

He is a populist in the negative sense of being an authoritarian and xenophobe. He's "for the people", or at least some people, in the sense that he validates the belief that their problems are the fault of illegal immigrants, or Muslims, or, before long one would imagine, Jews.

There is that sort of populism, and then there is the populism that asks ordinary people what they want and then be beholden to that rather than to pundits or the elites, or resorting to demonizing any other group (though I suppose I have to point out, despite it being obvious, that having policy differences and pointing them out ... or differences between two candidate's records and pointing it out ... is NOT demonizing).

Two paragraphs about Sanders you can't stand for some reason doesn't make me a mindless supporter. I have to support someone. My point is that you would not call me a "Biden bot" or an "Amy bot" or "Warren bot" if I wrote two grafs about THEM. Somehow ... two grafs about Sanders just makes you lose your shit.

You might ask yourself why that is.

@1of5 ummm, I have never used the word "b9t"...that would be you. So who wre you replying to, exactly?