Is Mike Buying the Election?

no buying

No, Bernie, Mike is not buying the election. Mike is buying a stupendously large number of advertisements.

And what do all of these ads say? Do they say, in words or substance, “Vote for me because I have more money than God and therefore deserve to be president”?

No, that is not what they say.

What they do say, in words or substance, is “Vote for me because I have more money than God—which is, BTW, about 50 times more money than Donald Trump has—and because I have a solid record of business experience, I have a solid record of political and administrative experience, I have a solid record of philanthropy on a massive scale, I articulate the right priorities, I put my money exactly where my mouth is, in support of the priorities I have articulated, and because I scare the bejesus out of Donald Trump.”

Finally, let us ask, in what circumstances would buying the largest number of ads equate to buying the election?

That would be a circumstance in which the electorate are so stupid that they simply vote for the person who bought the most advertisements, regardless of what the advertisements say.

So, Bernie, would you please stop saying that anyone who entertains the possibility of supporting Mike is stupid? Because it’s untrue. Because it’s insulting. And because it doesn’t help your cause.

Billionaires and the Debate

billionaire

The Sheer Wealth Issue

Last night, someone dismissed Bloomberg’s appeal by allowing as how the last thing voters would want is someone even richer than Trump in the White House. That is, I believe, an unsound observation, arising from the failure to follow Sunzi and Know Your Enemy. In fact, I think a lot of folks on the other side worship Trump because of his alleged wealth. Bloomberg is the person best positioned to show Trump up for the phony he is.

The “Buying Elections” Issue

Last night, someone dismissed Bloomberg by saying, in words or substance, that it isn’t kosher to pick a wealthy, self-funding candidate who can vastly outspend everyone else. The claim, in essence, is that Bloomberg’s method of seeking the nomination is entirely disqualifying.

The argument has great appeal. But suppose, just for the sake of the discussion, that you think Bloomberg is the candidate most likely to win the general election. Do you want to disqualify him anyway, and pick the person next most likely to win, even though that person might lose?