I think it would interesting to add a campaign spending cap for politicians, similar to what the UK, New Zealand, and Italy have. On one hand, Moore sounds silly because Bloomberg has 8% in the polls, so if your polling that high it's not insanity that he makes a debate, and I'm sure if he pulled a Steyer and ran a bunch of adds for 1 dollar donations he could hit the donor mark anyways. On the other hand, Bloomberg, Steyer legitimately bought their way on stage, which isn't very democratic, more plutocratic. Pete, Amy, Yang fans, how's it feel knowing Bloomberg is just walking right in over all of these people who put a lot of work into their campaign? Probably not good. As a Bernie supporter, I'm not too worried about Bloomberg, in fact, Bloomberg buying his way in front of the American people is a softball for Bernie's campaign, I think this is more likely to help him than hurt him.
Michael Moore has had a bit of a savior complex with Bernie lately which is quite the turn off with a guy I usually admire. I’m a Bernie fan and thinking about voting for him in the TX primary but I think it’s a big mistake with the folks who go almost as far as Trumpers do with the savior complex. Bernie is just a human with flaws and talents. I’m getting very tiresome of the victimization his base has displayed. You want the nomination, maybe try and expand your electorate and drop the stupid purity test. It’s a self defeating strategy.
I like Yang's idea on this. "Democracy Dollars" would put $100 in the hands of every voter for them to donate to the candidate of their choice. This puts the onus on the candidate to get out and campaign and talk policy in order to earn voter money. It also limits the ability of big corporations to buy themselves or their candidates into elections. My question is just where do we get this money from?
It's interesting, but I think a spending cap would still be necessary to completely curb corruption, or else there's still an incentive to take additional corporate, or billionaire money to greater your chance at winning over the others. The money for the Yang idea, of course, would need to come from a tax of some sort, I think 100 bucks is way too much, really 10 bucks is plenty. 10 "democracy dollars" per American, with a campaign spending cap for each candidate in both primary and general. 5 dollar limit on primary, 5 dollar limit in general per American. If money isn't spent (which would probably be around half considering our low political involvement), the money is given back as a tax refund or something.
from the reliably anti-Trump Outside the Beltway: "DNC Making Up Rules as it Goes: Proposed mid-stream changes could help Bloomberg, hurt Sanders, and divide the party." https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dnc-making-up-rules-as-it-goes/ excerpt: . . . while it makes perfect sense to ratchet the requirements up as the race goes along, those metrics should have been established at the outset. Otherwise, it appears that the party is crafting them to choose their preferred candidates—even if that’s not what’s actually happening. Now, it’s true that the Republican Party looks to be changing the rules to ensure that President Trump faces no serious primary challenge. Indeed, it looks like a number of states may not have presidential primaries at all on the GOP side. But Trump would cruise to the nomination regardless and alienating the seven people who might cast a protest ballot for Bill Weld or Mark Stanford isn’t going to divide the party. The Democratic Party is bigger and more diverse. Tensions between the progressive and establishment wings are going to leave a large swath of the party bitter regardless of the outcome. And Sanders is simply a sore loser; he’s going to feel robbed regardless if he loses. But it’s the job of the party leadership to minimize these challenges. Doing everything in their power to ensure that the process seems fair is a minimum first step in that.
Except, you know, that they aren't. They said months ago - before Bloomberg ever joined - that the debate rules would change once actual votes were cast because they would have more direct measures of candidates' popularity. Besides, the other campaigns ASKED them to change the rules too - because they didn't Bloomberg skating by without having to debate anyone. People are just b****ing for the sake of b****ing.
How did they buy their way on stage? Because they ran adds promoting them as a good candidate? Sanders outspent Biden 2 to 1 in the latest quarter did he buy his way up the polls? Your talking points make no sense why is spending your own money for the same thing worse than Berny spending money? This really makes no sense, should candidates not run adds?
MM is not happy about the DNC or Clinton (both of them) or Obama or _anyone mainstream_ or republican or anyone not a socialist is almost like water is wet.
Dude what are you missing in your calculations...? Bernie’s campaign money was donated by the American people. Their financial votes get him on the debate stages, and makes his campaign strong. This is democratic. The Berg & Sty man, on the other hand, are using their obscure amount of personal wealth to get their way onto the stages. Look at the number of ads they have bought compared to the rest of the party. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-campaign-ads/ , this is plutocratic IMO. They were not chosen by the people, they are buying legitimacy as candidates. I also support the regulation of political ads, but this is a whole topic of its self. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_advertising#Regulation
Michael Moore is smarter than all the other fake liberals because he knows how to sound smart to them despite constantly feeding them bs.
How is their money obscure? It's from their personal accounts. If they get the votes to secure the nomination yes they chosen by the people, how can that even be refuted. So let's see you are dammed if you except outside money and just as dammed if you use your own money, how does that even make sense? Every politician who uses adds are buying legitimacy as a candidate using your reasoning.
Meant to say obscene*, not obscure. I want democratic elections that can't be bought by the dirty outside money or personal wealth, I know it's a wild thought for America, but it would be nice. Bernie laid the blueprints, other candidates don't have excuses not to follow. Raise money from the American working class, not wealthy donors and corporations through PACs. If a billionaire wants to run that's totally fine, but they shouldn't be able to buy the election with their personal money, that is not democratic to me. I understand it's completely legal and within the norm, but I hope someday (hopefully soon) it will no longer be. And ads do buy legitimacy, and it matters who's paying for that legitimacy, is it the millions of Americans? Or is it just one uber-rich person? Or a group of uber-rich people and corporations?
