The Bloomberg Effect: Huge Spending Transforms 2020 Campaign Dynamics

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...H8N?li=BBnbfcN


The presidential election is 10 months away, but Michael Bloomberg’s long-shot campaign is running like it’s already late October. © Carolyn Kaster / AP Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The candidate has spent $217 million so far on television and digital advertising, mostly ignoring the Democratic primaries and squarely challenging President Trump. The total is roughly three-quarters of the amount spent by all other campaigns, including Mr. Trump’s, combined.
It’s the game plan the billionaire used in his campaign for mayor of New York City in 2001, when he outspent his competitor nearly 5 to 1. Big spending has also made his philanthropy a dominant force on climate change, gun control and other issues. And it is how he has managed his lucrative business, paying up to bring in talent.
The flow of cash—dubbed the Bloomberg effect by media-measurement firm Advertising Analytics LLC—has upended the financial dynamics of the election. Television ad rates jumped 45% in Houston after the Bloomberg campaign bought $1 million worth of ads in November, Advertising Analytics said. The campaign paid as much as double the going rate for staff and promised jobs to workers through November, whether or not Mr. Bloomberg stays in the race. The candidate now has 1,000 campaign staffers.
It’s a big part of the reason roughly $20 billion is expected to be spent on political advertising this election cycle, dwarfing the previous record of $12 billion in 2016, according to media research firm, Borrell Associates.

“Everything about what Bloomberg is doing is unprecedented,” said Rufus Gifford, former finance director for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Mr. Bloomberg remains a long shot, Mr. Gifford said, “but when you have Donald Trump as president and one of the 10 richest people running for president, anything can happen.”
Kevin Sheekey, Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign manager, said there’s more to Mr. Bloomberg’s candidacy than his spending, pointing to wealthy but politically inexperienced candidates such as Meg Whitman or Ross Perot who failed in the past. “Money won’t just determine elections,” he said. “You have to have a record and a message.”
Lots of rich people have run for office, lots of candidates have claimed excellent business credentials and many have claimed to have top-flight data operations, which Mr. Bloomberg emphasizes. What sets his campaign apart is his $55 billion checkbook.
Mr. Bloomberg is No. 9 on the Forbes list of the world’s richest people, ahead of each of the Google founders, either Koch brother and the wealthiest members of the Walton family. A person familiar with the plans said he could spend $500 million on the primaries alone, and Mr. Bloomberg hasn’t ruled out spending $1 billion before November if needed.

“Certainly it’s going to be disruptive,” said Robert Wolf, former chairman and CEO of UBS Americas and a longtime Democratic donor. “We just don’t know how yet.”
Mr. Bloomberg, who was mayor of New York from 2002 to 2013, is currently supported by 6% of voters, compared with 27% for former Vice President Joe Biden in the Real Clear Politics average of polls. More voters have a negative than a positive view of Mr. Bloomberg, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll from mid-December.
Mr. Bloomberg said he entered the race at a moment when polling data suggested voters placed less importance on ideology and more on finding a candidate who could beat Mr. Trump. His campaign believed Mr. Trump was winning the race and was going unchallenged in political ads in competitive states as Democratic candidates focused on the primary battle.
At the time, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was surging. Polls showed Mr. Biden beating Mr. Trump but within the margin of error. Ms. Warren’s policies, such as a wealth tax, would likely hurt Mr. Bloomberg, and she is generally disliked by his circle of wealthy New Yorkers, according to a longtime staff member. Mr. Bloomberg has said he will back whoever wins the nomination, even if it is Ms. Warren or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
To offset criticism that he was running out of his own self interest, Mr. Bloomberg pledged $15 million to $20 million to register 500,000 voters before the election. His attacks on Mr. Trump are part of that effort.
“There’s a sense that Bloomberg is doing something that the party can’t do—going negative on Trump,” Mr. Gifford said. “It’s work that the party doesn’t have the money to do, and other candidates don’t have the ability to do.”
After Mr. Trump’s campaign said it had bought a 60-second TV spot during the Super Bowl on Feb. 2, the Bloomberg campaign bought a 60-second spot that will target the president. The Bloomberg campaign declined to disclose how much it was spending for the spot, but advertising tracker Kantar/CMAG estimates it is worth $10 million.
Bloomberg spending has drawn Mr. Trump’s attention. When the campaign aired an ad saying the president had broken his promise of protecting those with pre-existing health conditions, Mr. Trump pushed back on Twitter and labeled Mr. Bloomberg “Mini Mike.”
Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign said that because he started late, it is focusing on the Super Tuesday votes on March 3, rather than the early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. The plan plays to Mr. Bloomberg’s financial advantage and minimizes his weaknesses—shaking hands and making small talk with voters, and giving stump speeches. The Super Tuesday states, where 40% of delegates will be chosen, instead depend more on television and digital advertising.
In addition to huge TV spending—$193 million on ads since his campaign began—the campaign has spent heavily online. It spent $16.1 million on Google ads as of Jan. 11 and $6.8 million on Facebook as of the end of December according to Kantar/CMAG.
Mr. Trump has spent $6.5 million on digital ads, and Tom Steyer, the other billionaire Democratic candidate, has spent $5.6 million since Mr. Bloomberg entered the race in November, as of the end of last year.
The Bloomberg campaign is offering field organizers salaries of $6,000 a month. For state data directors, it’s between $10,000 and $12,000 a month, according to job postings.
The campaign’s 1,000-person payroll is more typical of an operation in the final months before Election Day. Mr. Biden has roughly 400 campaign staffers, while Mr. Sanders has built an 800-person staff.
The former mayor’s late entry into the race has forced the campaign to “create a sense of momentum and hope people will actually jump on,” said a personal familiar with Mr. Bloomberg’s state operations.
Campaign veterans said money won’t necessarily bring in the best staff and said many experienced staffers want to work for people they support. Other campaigns, including Ms. Warren’s and Mr. Sanders’s, already have operations in Super Tuesday states and are ramping up hiring in later states.
Mr. Bloomberg has spent in markets that haven’t been targeted by other Democrats. His campaign has plunked down $21.2 million on television advertising in Texas, where none of the leading Democrats have spent a penny. It has spent $8.4 million in Pennsylvania, which doesn’t hold its primary until April 28.
It has even poured resources into smaller states that are typically not on the primary radar. In Idaho, it has spent $979,000 so far; in Utah, $1.6 million.
“He is going far, far ahead of where the rest of the guys are scrumming,” said Kip Cassino, executive vice president at Borrell Associates, the media research firm. “He is basically saying, ‘I’m not going to win in Iowa, and I am not going to get out there and kiss pigs. And I won’t win in New Hampshire, but I will win in the rest of the states, and I will get the states that most everyone didn’t care about before.’ ”
At the beginning of January, candidates had spent close to $540 million on political ads in the presidential race over the prior 12 months, about 10 times what would have been expected at this point in this election cycle, Mr. Cassino said.
“We have never seen anything like this,” Mr. Cassino said, referring to Mr. Bloomberg’s spending. “We are only just starting to see how distorting this might be.”
Mr. Bloomberg’s potential handicaps among Democratic voters include his support for Republican candidates in the past, including former President George W. Bush. Other issues that could hurt are his support for charter schools in his education-reform efforts, and the stop-and-frisk policy he adopted as mayor, in which New York police had wide latitude to detain and search passersby for contraband. A federal judge eventually ruled the policy violated the constitutional rights of minorities. Mr. Bloomberg apologized for the stop-and-frisk policy before he kicked off his campaign.
Some Democrats fear Mr. Bloomberg could drag out the primary with his limitless budget, or use his money to try to influence the leading candidates, hoping to pull some of them to the political center, which he sees as the way to beat Mr. Trump.
Mr. Bloomberg’s team said the data operation he is building will benefit Democrats overall, which he said are far behind the Republicans on the gathering and use of voter data. His data firm, Hawkfish LLC, launched in the spring. It has hired Facebook’s former chief marketing officer and the former CEO of Foursquare, the location tracking firm.
Mr. Bloomberg has cited his research and spending on the 2018 midterm elections as evidence of his commitment to the party’s success. Democratic candidates won 21 of the 24 races in which he was involved. In most races, the spending focused on digital advertising early in the election cycle and TV advertising closer to election day, when ad reservations were more expensive and Republican groups could not as easily counter their message.
In an Oklahoma House of Representatives race, which appeared to be a long-shot for the Democrats, Mr. Bloomberg unleashed a wave of last-minute ads that attacked the Republican candidate. Democrat Kendra Horn won by a few thousand votes.
“I supported 24 candidates who were good on guns and good on environment, and 21 of them won, and that flipped the House,” he said at a recent campaign stop in Philadelphia. “So if it wasn’t for that, you wouldn’t have Pelosi and you wouldn’t have impeachment.”


Soros and Bloomberg - spending billions of dollars for socialism. Even Fascist DPST donors are worried they are being out-spent. Capitalism comes to the Marxist progressive totalitarian party - and the Marxists are scared they will not have a communist nominee.
At this rate - Bloomie can spend all his fortune in the run up to the 2024 election. if and when the Fascist DPST's ever get one of their own in office - he won't have any more money for them to confiscate with a wealth tax.

Lizzie and Bernie - conveniently - exempt themselves from the wealth tax.

usual Fascist DPST hypocrisy!

Yes, Liz and Bernie have conveniently designed their proposed wealth taxes so they won’t be affected.

Bloomberg won’t get the nomination. The danger is if Sanders or Warren gets it. Bloomberg apparently is willing to spend hundreds of millions to help get one of them elected. The article describes millions he’s spending on Trump bashing and on data gathering for the party. That will hurt too. His pocketbook could tip the scales this year and get someone far to the left of Obama or Clinton elected.

How did Sanders and Warren exempt themselves from the "wealth tax"?

Moot point. There is no "wealth tax". Another lying liar pulling shit out of his ass.

Repubs and trumpys. The party and candidates of the lying liars.

Why do you feel it necessary to make stuff up? You have been lying on a regular basis for some time now.

I suppose you could be more full of shit than you are. With your victim mentality, you lie to try and bring people down to your level. You cry about name-calling even as you name call in every post you make. You can't attack facts that come out of your "leadership's" mouths so you rely on ad hominem attacks as well as out and out lies (trump at 15,000 + and counting).

You lose more and more independents as well as trump issue voters. His tax reform dropped his taxes by millions. Everybody else got a drop in the bucket compared to the top 10%.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...H8N?li=BBnbfcN


The presidential election is 10 months away, but Michael Bloomberg’s long-shot campaign is running like it’s already late October. © Carolyn Kaster / AP Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The candidate has spent $217 million so far on television and digital advertising, mostly ignoring the Democratic primaries and squarely challenging President Trump. The total is roughly three-quarters of the amount spent by all other campaigns, including Mr. Trump’s, combined.
It’s the game plan the billionaire used in his campaign for mayor of New York City in 2001, when he outspent his competitor nearly 5 to 1. Big spending has also made his philanthropy a dominant force on climate change, gun control and other issues. And it is how he has managed his lucrative business, paying up to bring in talent.
The flow of cash—dubbed the Bloomberg effect by media-measurement firm Advertising Analytics LLC—has upended the financial dynamics of the election. Television ad rates jumped 45% in Houston after the Bloomberg campaign bought $1 million worth of ads in November, Advertising Analytics said. The campaign paid as much as double the going rate for staff and promised jobs to workers through November, whether or not Mr. Bloomberg stays in the race. The candidate now has 1,000 campaign staffers.
It’s a big part of the reason roughly $20 billion is expected to be spent on political advertising this election cycle, dwarfing the previous record of $12 billion in 2016, according to media research firm, Borrell Associates.

“Everything about what Bloomberg is doing is unprecedented,” said Rufus Gifford, former finance director for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Mr. Bloomberg remains a long shot, Mr. Gifford said, “but when you have Donald Trump as president and one of the 10 richest people running for president, anything can happen.”
Kevin Sheekey, Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign manager, said there’s more to Mr. Bloomberg’s candidacy than his spending, pointing to wealthy but politically inexperienced candidates such as Meg Whitman or Ross Perot who failed in the past. “Money won’t just determine elections,” he said. “You have to have a record and a message.”
Lots of rich people have run for office, lots of candidates have claimed excellent business credentials and many have claimed to have top-flight data operations, which Mr. Bloomberg emphasizes. What sets his campaign apart is his $55 billion checkbook.
Mr. Bloomberg is No. 9 on the Forbes list of the world’s richest people, ahead of each of the Google founders, either Koch brother and the wealthiest members of the Walton family. A person familiar with the plans said he could spend $500 million on the primaries alone, and Mr. Bloomberg hasn’t ruled out spending $1 billion before November if needed.

“Certainly it’s going to be disruptive,” said Robert Wolf, former chairman and CEO of UBS Americas and a longtime Democratic donor. “We just don’t know how yet.”
Mr. Bloomberg, who was mayor of New York from 2002 to 2013, is currently supported by 6% of voters, compared with 27% for former Vice President Joe Biden in the Real Clear Politics average of polls. More voters have a negative than a positive view of Mr. Bloomberg, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll from mid-December.
Mr. Bloomberg said he entered the race at a moment when polling data suggested voters placed less importance on ideology and more on finding a candidate who could beat Mr. Trump. His campaign believed Mr. Trump was winning the race and was going unchallenged in political ads in competitive states as Democratic candidates focused on the primary battle.
At the time, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was surging. Polls showed Mr. Biden beating Mr. Trump but within the margin of error. Ms. Warren’s policies, such as a wealth tax, would likely hurt Mr. Bloomberg, and she is generally disliked by his circle of wealthy New Yorkers, according to a longtime staff member. Mr. Bloomberg has said he will back whoever wins the nomination, even if it is Ms. Warren or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
To offset criticism that he was running out of his own self interest, Mr. Bloomberg pledged $15 million to $20 million to register 500,000 voters before the election. His attacks on Mr. Trump are part of that effort.
“There’s a sense that Bloomberg is doing something that the party can’t do—going negative on Trump,” Mr. Gifford said. “It’s work that the party doesn’t have the money to do, and other candidates don’t have the ability to do.”
After Mr. Trump’s campaign said it had bought a 60-second TV spot during the Super Bowl on Feb. 2, the Bloomberg campaign bought a 60-second spot that will target the president. The Bloomberg campaign declined to disclose how much it was spending for the spot, but advertising tracker Kantar/CMAG estimates it is worth $10 million.
Bloomberg spending has drawn Mr. Trump’s attention. When the campaign aired an ad saying the president had broken his promise of protecting those with pre-existing health conditions, Mr. Trump pushed back on Twitter and labeled Mr. Bloomberg “Mini Mike.”
Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign said that because he started late, it is focusing on the Super Tuesday votes on March 3, rather than the early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. The plan plays to Mr. Bloomberg’s financial advantage and minimizes his weaknesses—shaking hands and making small talk with voters, and giving stump speeches. The Super Tuesday states, where 40% of delegates will be chosen, instead depend more on television and digital advertising.
In addition to huge TV spending—$193 million on ads since his campaign began—the campaign has spent heavily online. It spent $16.1 million on Google ads as of Jan. 11 and $6.8 million on Facebook as of the end of December according to Kantar/CMAG.
Mr. Trump has spent $6.5 million on digital ads, and Tom Steyer, the other billionaire Democratic candidate, has spent $5.6 million since Mr. Bloomberg entered the race in November, as of the end of last year.
The Bloomberg campaign is offering field organizers salaries of $6,000 a month. For state data directors, it’s between $10,000 and $12,000 a month, according to job postings.
The campaign’s 1,000-person payroll is more typical of an operation in the final months before Election Day. Mr. Biden has roughly 400 campaign staffers, while Mr. Sanders has built an 800-person staff.
The former mayor’s late entry into the race has forced the campaign to “create a sense of momentum and hope people will actually jump on,” said a personal familiar with Mr. Bloomberg’s state operations.
Campaign veterans said money won’t necessarily bring in the best staff and said many experienced staffers want to work for people they support. Other campaigns, including Ms. Warren’s and Mr. Sanders’s, already have operations in Super Tuesday states and are ramping up hiring in later states.
Mr. Bloomberg has spent in markets that haven’t been targeted by other Democrats. His campaign has plunked down $21.2 million on television advertising in Texas, where none of the leading Democrats have spent a penny. It has spent $8.4 million in Pennsylvania, which doesn’t hold its primary until April 28.
It has even poured resources into smaller states that are typically not on the primary radar. In Idaho, it has spent $979,000 so far; in Utah, $1.6 million.
“He is going far, far ahead of where the rest of the guys are scrumming,” said Kip Cassino, executive vice president at Borrell Associates, the media research firm. “He is basically saying, ‘I’m not going to win in Iowa, and I am not going to get out there and kiss pigs. And I won’t win in New Hampshire, but I will win in the rest of the states, and I will get the states that most everyone didn’t care about before.’ ”
At the beginning of January, candidates had spent close to $540 million on political ads in the presidential race over the prior 12 months, about 10 times what would have been expected at this point in this election cycle, Mr. Cassino said.
“We have never seen anything like this,” Mr. Cassino said, referring to Mr. Bloomberg’s spending. “We are only just starting to see how distorting this might be.”
Mr. Bloomberg’s potential handicaps among Democratic voters include his support for Republican candidates in the past, including former President George W. Bush. Other issues that could hurt are his support for charter schools in his education-reform efforts, and the stop-and-frisk policy he adopted as mayor, in which New York police had wide latitude to detain and search passersby for contraband. A federal judge eventually ruled the policy violated the constitutional rights of minorities. Mr. Bloomberg apologized for the stop-and-frisk policy before he kicked off his campaign.
Some Democrats fear Mr. Bloomberg could drag out the primary with his limitless budget, or use his money to try to influence the leading candidates, hoping to pull some of them to the political center, which he sees as the way to beat Mr. Trump.
Mr. Bloomberg’s team said the data operation he is building will benefit Democrats overall, which he said are far behind the Republicans on the gathering and use of voter data. His data firm, Hawkfish LLC, launched in the spring. It has hired Facebook’s former chief marketing officer and the former CEO of Foursquare, the location tracking firm.
Mr. Bloomberg has cited his research and spending on the 2018 midterm elections as evidence of his commitment to the party’s success. Democratic candidates won 21 of the 24 races in which he was involved. In most races, the spending focused on digital advertising early in the election cycle and TV advertising closer to election day, when ad reservations were more expensive and Republican groups could not as easily counter their message.
In an Oklahoma House of Representatives race, which appeared to be a long-shot for the Democrats, Mr. Bloomberg unleashed a wave of last-minute ads that attacked the Republican candidate. Democrat Kendra Horn won by a few thousand votes.
“I supported 24 candidates who were good on guns and good on environment, and 21 of them won, and that flipped the House,” he said at a recent campaign stop in Philadelphia. “So if it wasn’t for that, you wouldn’t have Pelosi and you wouldn’t have impeachment.”


Soros and Bloomberg - spending billions of dollars for socialism. Even Fascist DPST donors are worried they are being out-spent. Capitalism comes to the Marxist progressive totalitarian party - and the Marxists are scared they will not have a communist nominee.
At this rate - Bloomie can spend all his fortune in the run up to the 2024 election. if and when the Fascist DPST's ever get one of their own in office - he won't have any more money for them to confiscate with a wealth tax.

Lizzie and Bernie - conveniently - exempt themselves from the wealth tax.

usual Fascist DPST hypocrisy! Originally Posted by oeb11

bloomie won't get the nomination. just can't see it. demos are very anti-business.



he might make it close tho, leading to a brokered convention.

How did Sanders and Warren exempt themselves from the "wealth tax"?

Moot point. There is no "wealth tax". Another lying liar pulling shit out of his ass.

Repubs and trumpys. The party and candidates of the lying liars.

Why do you feel it necessary to make stuff up? You have been lying on a regular basis for some time now.

I suppose you could be more full of shit than you are. With your victim mentality, you lie to try and bring people down to your level. You cry about name-calling even as you name call in every post you make. You can't attack facts that come out of your "leadership's" mouths so you rely on ad hominem attacks as well as out and out lies (trump at 15,000 + and counting).

You lose more and more independents as well as trump issue voters. His tax reform dropped his taxes by millions. Everybody else got a drop in the bucket compared to the top 10%. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Warren’s and Sander’s wealth taxes don’t kick in until a person has a net worth of $50 million and $32 million respectively. Warren is wealthy and Sanders is well off, but neither is worth $32 million.

Actually the top 10% as a whole probably got less benefit from the tax cuts than the bottom 90%. This is because upper middle class taxpayers received little or no reduction in their tax rates. The biggest beneficiaries were small businessmen, and also big businessmen who have lots of depreciation expense (like Trump) and lots of labor expense compared to their total expenses.

Other than ads during a couple of NFL games, I haven't seen much of Bloomberg. I'm sure the DNC machine is loving this, not. Plus, if he DOESN'T get the Dim nom he's spent so much money that he HAS to run as third party candidate. Bloomie can't justify spending $1B Million by the Dims promising you a seat at the table. Fuck, you bought the table.

I'm crossing over and voting for Bernie in the Texas Primary. My dead father and mother may also.

gnad.
He's been spending heavy money on his home turf (east coast) for several months and only recently midwest.

The other billionaire has been the one spending big bucks in the early states...Nevada being one.

I do not think Sanders or Warren will get the nod but nor did I think Trump would so who knows.

Other than ads during a couple of NFL games, I haven't seen much of Bloomberg. I'm sure the DNC machine is loving this, not. Plus, if he DOESN'T get the Dim nom he's spent so much money that he HAS to run as third party candidate. Bloomie can't justify spending $1B Million by the Dims promising you a seat at the table. Fuck, you bought the table.

I'm crossing over and voting for Bernie in the Texas Primary. My dead father and mother may also. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I am going to vote for Bernie in the Democrat Primary in Texas as well.

I still do not believe that any of the current candidates will get the nomination.

Gnadfly / Jackie S - If you had to support a Democrat for president, would Sanders be your choice? Or are you voting for Sanders because you think Trump will have an easier time beating him than Biden?

Warren’s and Sander’s wealth taxes don’t kick in until a person has a net worth of $50 million and $32 million respectively. Warren is wealthy and Sanders is well off, but neither is worth $32 million.

Actually the top 10% as a whole probably got less benefit from the tax cuts than the bottom 90%. This is because upper middle class taxpayers received little or no reduction in their tax rates. The biggest beneficiaries were small businessmen, and also big businessmen who have lots of depreciation expense (like Trump) and lots of labor expense compared to their total expenses. Originally Posted by Tiny

of course they aren't rich enough to be taxed by their plans, that's their plan. bhahaa what person able to earn 32 million or far more would impose a wealth tax on themselves?


many uber wealthy have said they'd support more taxation .. under the one condition the Gov can't provide .. fiscal responsibility.


that Sanders and Warren are only minor rich they think that gives them street cred in the socialist movement they are trying to lead. like all socialists they want to take what they can't earn or create.


as someone at the bottom end of the top 10 .. my tax rate dropped from 28 to 24%. about 5k to me. more money to invest in the Trump economy.

of course they aren't rich enough to be taxed by their plans, that's their plan. bhahaa what person able to earn 32 million or far more would impose a wealth tax on themselves?


many uber wealthy have said they'd support more taxation .. under the one condition the Gov can't provide .. fiscal responsibility.


that Sanders and Warren are only minor rich they think that gives them street cred in the socialist movement they are trying to lead. like all socialists they want to take what they can't earn or create.


as someone at the bottom end of the top 10 .. my tax rate dropped from 28 to 24%. about 5k to me. more money to invest in the Trump economy. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Here are before & after tax tables:

https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/i...-tax-brackets/

The cut from 28% to 24% would mean you were making between $91,900 and $157,500 if you're single or between $153,100 and $315,000 if married.

Note though what happens when you go to the next bracket up. If you're single and made from $200,000 to $416,699, your marginal rate actually went up, from 33% to 35%.

The people at the bottom of the 10%, like you, got a good tax cut. Your marginal income tax rate was 14% less (1- 24/28 = 14% less). And those at the top of the 10%, making over $500,000 per year, did OK, with a 7% cut.

People making less than you also got decent tax cuts, with marginal rates reduced by 12% to 20%.

That's why I said the top 10% as a whole got screwed compared to everybody else. For many of them, their marginal rates actually went up, while everybody else's went down.

How much money is "$1B Million"?


He has spent @$200 million so far. He is open to spending up to a billion but he doesn't HAVE to run as a 3rd party candidate. Plus there is no promise of a seat at the table.

Don't you people ever look for information from other sources besides redstate and fox? You censor yourselves because you won't find news against trump in those sources.

Michael Bloomberg Is Open to Spending $1 Billion to Defeat Trump
The Democratic presidential candidate said he would spend big even if the nominee was someone he had sharp differences with, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.


SAN MARCOS, Texas — Michael R. Bloomberg on Saturday did not rule out spending a billion dollars of his own money on the 2020 presidential race, even if he does not win the Democratic nomination, and said he would mobilize his well-financed political operation to help Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren win in November if either is the party nominee, despite their sharp policy differences.

Mr. Bloomberg’s plans would effectively create a shadow campaign operation for the general election, complete with hundreds of organizers in key battleground states and a robust digital operation, ready to be inherited by the party nominee — regardless of who that nominee may be.

Already, Mr. Bloomberg has spent more than $200 million on advertising, putting him on pace to spend by early March about the same as what President Barack Obama’s campaign spent on advertising over the course of the entire 2012 general election. If Mr. Bloomberg fails to win the nomination, future spending would be redirected toward attacking Mr. Trump.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/11/u...-spending.html

Other than ads during a couple of NFL games, I haven't seen much of Bloomberg. I'm sure the DNC machine is loving this, not. Plus, if he DOESN'T get the Dim nom he's spent so much money that he HAS to run as third party candidate. Bloomie can't justify spending $1B Million by the Dims promising you a seat at the table. Fuck, you bought the table.

I'm crossing over and voting for Bernie in the Texas Primary. My dead father and mother may also. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Warren’s and Sander’s wealth taxes don’t kick in until a person has a net worth of $50 million and $32 million respectively. Warren is wealthy and Sanders is well off, but neither is worth $32 million.

Actually the top 10% as a whole probably got less benefit from the tax cuts than the bottom 90%. This is because upper middle class taxpayers received little or no reduction in their tax rates. The biggest beneficiaries were small businessmen, and also big businessmen who have lots of depreciation expense (like Trump) and lots of labor expense compared to their total expenses. Originally Posted by Tiny

If he doesn't know the THREE branches of Gumment...he sure doesn't know or understand the tax laws.

Warren’s and Sander’s wealth taxes don’t kick in until a person has a net worth of $50 million and $32 million respectively. Warren is wealthy and Sanders is well off, but neither is worth $32 million.

Actually the top 10% as a whole probably got less benefit from the tax cuts than the bottom 90%. This is because upper middle class taxpayers received little or no reduction in their tax rates. The biggest beneficiaries were small businessmen, and also big businessmen who have lots of depreciation expense (like Trump) and lots of labor expense compared to their total expenses. Originally Posted by Tiny

If he doesn't know the THREE branches of Gumment...he sure doesn't know or understand the more complex tax laws.