Democrat Warren accuses rival Bloomberg of trying to buy U.S. presidential election

[GreasyFingers]

A couple of quotes:

Senators raising money

Harkin is not the only senator to point this out. Last year another liberal stalwart, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), memorably told Alex Blumberg of NPR’s Planet Money that Americans “would be shocked—not surprised, but shocked—if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money.” He added, “And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money.”

“Call time” means fundraising time: hours spent on the phone calling up current and potential donors and asking for campaign cash. The DCCC tells its freshmen to spend more time calling donors than they spend on anything else. Ezra Klein called it “the most depressing graphic for members of Congress.” I’m sure Tom Harkin would agree.

 

 

This is the first story in a Planet Money series on money in politics. We'll have more this afternoon on All Things Considered, and this weekend on This American Life.

We think of lawmakers having one job: making laws. But there's a second job most lawmakers have to do. And it's a big job.

"I think most Americans would be shocked — not surprised, but shocked — if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money," says Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin. "And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money."

And this second job — the raising-money job — doesn't happen in the nice congressional offices, with the rugs on the floor and landscape paintings on the wall. That would be against the rules.

So senators and congressmen go across the street to private rooms in nongovernmental buildings, where they make call after call, asking people for money.

In other words, most of our lawmakers are moonlighting as telemarketers.

"If you walked in there, you would say, 'Boy, this is the about the worst looking, most abusive looking call center situation I've seen in my life,'" says Rep. Peter Defazio, a Democrat from Oregon. "These people don't have any workspace, the other person is virtually touching them."

There are stacks of names in front of each lawmaker. They go through the list, making calls and asking people for money.

The fundraising never stops, because everyone needs money to run for re-election. In the House, the candidate with more money wins in 9 out of 10 races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. In the Senate, it's 8 out of 10.

It's not uncommon for congressmen to average three or four hours moonlighting as telemarketers. One lawmaker told me if it was the end of the quarter and he really needed to make his numbers, he'd be there all day long.

There's not always time to do both jobs. And often, the fundraising wins out over the lawmaking.

[Sir Swagman]

The US presidency has been ‘up for grabs’ one way or the other for decades. Money is the source of all the shenanigans that secure votes. 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, zydeco said:

Warren is the only candidate who will put billionaires and bankers on notice. The only one worth voting for. No more billionaires. Time for them all to cough up their ill-gotten gains from the fraudulent fixed stock market of the past ten years.

Agree that it's time to ban billionaires and jail bankers for the crimes they do, but unfortunately Warren has too much agenda to be the president, IMO. I don't think she is the right person to be leader of the free world. It's not just about America.

If Bloomberg is using his own money, IMO he wants to make something out of it if elected. I wouldn't vote for him if I could.

[Baerboxer]

On 11/26/2019 at 9:32 AM, zydeco said:

Warren is the only candidate who will put billionaires and bankers on notice. The only one worth voting for. No more billionaires. Time for them all to cough up their ill-gotten gains from the fraudulent fixed stock market of the past ten years.

 

Is it that she doesn't like billionaires because she's only a millionaire? Or is she also a billionaire?

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agree that it's time to ban billionaires and jail bankers for the crimes they do, but unfortunately Warren has too much agenda to be the president, IMO. I don't think she is the right person to be leader of the free world. It's not just about America.

If Bloomberg is using his own money, IMO he wants to make something out of it if elected. I wouldn't vote for him if I could.

He's insanely greedy. Unlike Donald Trump who paid off his bills by illicitly using charitable funds. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Is it that she doesn't like billionaires because she's only a millionaire? Or is she also a billionaire?

She's definitely not a billionaire. Interesting Warren's national poll ratings recently declined significantly. Rather surprising. Showing yet again this is a VERY fluid race and Bloomberg is correct that he does have a shot to be nominated in such a race. Pretty much all the candidates do as well except for the 1 or 2 percenters. 

 

To add attacking Bloomberg just because he is super rich is a double edged sword. Because he's the kind of rich person committed to giving away the majority of his money to good causes, and he has a long record of doing exactly that. 

 

Quote

What happened to Elizabeth Warren?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/26/what-happened-elizabeth-warren/

Edited November 27, 2019 by Jingthing

[TopDeadSenter]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Interesting Warren's national poll ratings recently declined massively. Rather surprising.

Not surprising at all. The woman couldn't even lie straight in bed. She is a compulsive liar. Potential voters probably do not like being lied to like this, coming so hot on the heels of her Red Indian heritage howler.

 

"Carpenter, the parent-group member, told Warren, “We are going to have the same choice that you had for your kids, because I read that your children went to private schools.” Warren quietly responded, “No, my children went to public schools.” Carpenter wasn’t mistaken: She was referring to my recent exposé in The Post about Warren sending her son Alex to an expensive private school in the 1980s."

https://nypost.com/2019/11/26/liz-warrens-latest-lie-only-deepens-her-dilemma-on-education/

[riclag]

 

It does worry me that bloomberg, a cooperate media  elite, is part of the what will be imop the cause of the damnation of the western culture, the enemy of the people, msm.

 

I prefer a non politician billionaire as oppose to a politician who claims they will never give into lobbyist like obama campaigned on,of which I voted for! As for warren she is a  extreme radical leftest with socialist  ideas of stealing from the rich and taxing the middle class while changing the the amount of supreme court justices and doing away with the electoral vote !

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by riclag

[BobBKK]

On 11/26/2019 at 9:32 AM, zydeco said:

Warren is the only candidate who will put billionaires and bankers on notice. The only one worth voting for. No more billionaires. Time for them all to cough up their ill-gotten gains from the fraudulent fixed stock market of the past ten years.

Can I correct the start of that headline?

"The Multi-Millionaire multi home owning Elizabeth Warren..."

[zydeco]

Sure, go ahead and nominate Bloomberg. He's nothing but another version of Trump with table manners. He'll continue with the Fed funded transfer of wealth to the one percent--like himself--and might actually be inclined to get the US in more wars than idiot Trump. Or go for Mayor Petey. He'll make all the suburban soccer moms bleat approval, because he is nothing more than than the perfect Oprahfied candidate. And he'll march to the bankers' drum, too. Biden? He can't even remember the way to the men's room. Only one person is going to change things. Warren. Without her, it'll all be serfs and lords forever.

[Cryingdick]

7 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Can I correct the start of that headline?

"The Multi-Millionaire multi home owning Elizabeth Warren..."

 

I see Warren and Bernies' limited fortunes differently. When you have been in the senate as long as they have and your main net worth is still mostly just a house or two that's a sign of failure. 

 

Being in the senate and knowing how votes are going to go and infrastructure plans etc and you only amass a few million lousy dollars? They are hardly even considered upper middle class in many areas. Bloomberg is the real deal. He will easily school the two of them on anything related to economics.

 

What a wild swing we have gone through. From a whining socialist that would need a roommate to afford to live in NYC to the mogul, tycoon and king of the market. His policy on how his news org reports is a tad disturbing however.

 

At least I could picture Bloomberg negotiating with Xi. The thought of Warren chastising Putin over carbon emissions is somewhat frightening. Bloomberg is a much welcomed entrant into the race for anybody that isn't homeless or looking for a bunch of fairytale entitlements.