'I'm spending all my money to get rid of Trump': Michael Bloomberg

By Jason Lange

 

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg waits to speak at an organizing event in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. January 10, 2020. REUTERS/ Chris Aluka Berry

 

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg told Reuters he is ready to spend much of his vast fortune to oust Republican President Donald Trump from the White House in 2020, rejecting criticism from rivals for the Democratic nomination that the billionaire is trying to buy the U.S. election.

 

Ranked by Forbes as the eighth-richest American, Bloomberg has flooded U.S. airwaves and social media feeds with messages that he stands the best chance to beat Trump, spending more on campaign ads since he launched his campaign in November than his main Democratic rivals have over the last year.

 

"Number one priority is to get rid of Donald Trump. I'm spending all my money to get rid of Trump," Bloomberg told Reuters aboard his campaign bus on Saturday, during a nearly 300-mile (483-km) drive across Texas, one of the 14 states that will vote on Super Tuesday on March 3.

 

"Do you want me to spend more or less? End of story."

 

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the leading Democratic presidential contenders who has vowed to get money out of politics, blasted Bloomberg when he launched his campaign with a $37-million TV advertising blitz, accusing the former New York City mayor of trying to buy American democracy.

 

"These are just political things they say, hoping they catch on and they don't like me doing it, because it competes with them, not because it's bad policy," Bloomberg said.

 

After entering the race late and missing the first six Democratic debates, Bloomberg generally sits fifth in national public opinion polls behind Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Warren and Pete Buttigieg.

 

But not just the two liberal standard-bearers of Warren and Sanders, all of the four are too liberal to beat Trump, Bloomberg said.

 

"One of the reasons I'm reasonably confident I could beat Trump is I would be acceptable to the moderate Republicans you have to have," said Bloomberg, a former Republican who made his fortune selling financial information to Wall Street firms.

 

"Whether you like it or not, you can’t win the election unless you get moderate Republicans to cross the line. The others are much too liberal for them and they would certainly vote for Donald Trump."

 

After a late entry into the race, he is skipping the first four Democratic nomination contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all due to take place in February.

 

Instead, Bloomberg is waging a nationwide campaign to capture delegates in later contests such as Texas, which will be the second largest prize among the 14 Super Tuesday states.

 

At campaign events in San Antonio, Austin and Dallas in Texas on Saturday, Bloomberg said his bipartisan nature made it more likely he could deliver on his pledges to expand health insurance coverage, fight climate change and reduce gun violence.

 

While his speeches drew modest crowds of no more than a few hundred in Austin and fewer still in San Antonio, many who attended said they were independents or former Trump supporters who had learned about Bloomberg through his massive advertising campaign.

 

"He’s better than Trump," said Marcelo Montemayor, 75, who listened to Bloomberg speak at a taco restaurant in San Antonio.

 

Montemayor voted for Trump in 2016 but worries the president’s conservative appointees to federal courts could undermine abortion rights.

Bloomberg's television ads have dominated the airwaves both nationwide and in Texas.

 

In the top four media markets in the Lone Star State, which include Houston and Dallas, Bloomberg has spent more than $15 million on television ads through mid-January, said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Houston's Rice University, who analyzed Federal Communications Commission records on ad buys.

 

That exceeds the combined spending nationwide by Democratic frontrunners in 2019, according to a Wesleyan Media Project analysis of Kantar/CMAG television ad data through mid-December.

 

And for this year's Super Bowl broadcast on Feb. 2 in Miami, Trump and Bloomberg both plan to air a 60-second television commercial, a prime example of their ability to devote vast resources to reach millions of viewers.

 

Trump campaign officials said the campaign paid $10 million for air time. Last year’s National Football League championship game drew nearly 100 million viewers.

 

"You can't get to 330 million people by shaking hands. Television is still the magic medium," Bloomberg said.

 

"If the Super Bowl wasn't a place to get to an awful lot of people they wouldn't be charging a lot, or nobody would be paying it. This is capitalism at work."

 

(Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Soyoung Kim and Clarence Fernandez)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-13

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

 

a good man that believes in the country and its people at last

Gimme some!

8 minutes ago, opalred said:

a good man that believes in the country and its people at last

as long as you dont have an extra large 7 up.

That's the folly with every candidate, they always think and convince others they can do better, much better in fact than the other they're trying to replace, and when the get elected, guess what? Oh, we didn't know how big a mess the previous president left us with, so bare with us, will get it right, and they never do...

Mike is the real deal a sielf made man he’s the kind of guy who does for his country not the kind of  of guy that does his country for what it can do for him.i also find it appealing that even if he doesent get the nomination he will throw his money and recorces to the nominee of choice a good and smart man

21 minutes ago, Tug said:

Mike is the real deal a sielf made man he’s the kind of guy who does for his country not the kind of  of guy that does his country for what it can do for him.i also find it appealing that even if he doesent get the nomination he will throw his money and recorces to the nominee of choice a good and smart man

In other words just another billionaire buying an election? But thats ok, because he is your billionaire.

21 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

In other words just another billionaire buying an election? But thats ok, because he is your billionaire.

Well, we have the right wing justices on the court who made that possible. The kind of justices Trump has appointed and will continue to appoint if he gets the chance. You know, because "drain the swamp."

McCutcheon v. FEC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC

Citizens United v. FEC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

4 hours ago, webfact said:

"He’s better than Trump," said Marcelo Montemayor, 75, who listened to Bloomberg speak at a taco restaurant in San Antonio.

A man that believes what politicians ( or wannabe politicians ) say. 555555555555555

 

IMO only reason Trump won was because of his opponent.

He or anyone else can spend away their fotunes but in the end it will be the people who vote that will either remove Trump or keep him there !

13 minutes ago, trainman34014 said:

He or anyone else can spend away their fotunes but in the end it will be the people who vote that will either remove Trump or keep him there !

So money really doesn't matter in elections?

He's a real contender. Yes it's his money but it's also his substance. I think it's super fantastic news that Bloomberg has committed to spending massively to defeat 45 whether he wins or loses the nomination. Money can be used for evil but in my view in this case it's being used to save our country from the obvious slide into authoritarian dictatorship. 

25 minutes ago, trainman34014 said:

He or anyone else can spend away their fotunes but in the end it will be the people who vote that will either remove Trump or keep him there !

Remove please!

6 hours ago, webfact said:

'I'm spending all my money to get rid of Trump': Michael Bloomberg

living the dream.....like P. T. Barnum said..."There's a sucker born every minute" 

5 minutes ago, wombat said:

living the dream.....like P. T. Barnum said..."There's a sucker born every minute" 

Bloomberg is the opposite of sucker.

45 cult of personality followers on the other hand ...

There is no doubt that Bloomberg's money will help in the righteous fight against this president who thinks he's a King.

In the house.

In the senate.

For the white house.

The only question is how MUCH it will help. 

He's an interesting possibility.  I think his chances really come down to 2 things:

 

1) Can he convince the "superdelegates" of the Democratic party to give him the nomination. Sanders was by far the better choice in 2016. The Democrats lost because they went with their crony, Clinton. The people were suitably unimpressed.

 

2) I don't agree with his assessment about "moderate Republicans" being needed. He is just trying to justify his position to Democrats. I think even Sanders would have defeated Trump. The problem is not about political leaning. The problem is people want someone who is going to overturn the status quo. "Change we can believe in" got Obama elected, and that "change" is still a point of laughter everywhere in flyover country when you talk about it.

 

Obama did nothing to fight the establishment. Ultimately that is what got Trump elected. If you want to beat Trump, you have to be meaner and more disruptive towards the Washington establishment than Trump is. Anyone who can win, is a candidate that the parties don't want to win. It is an interesting situation. Maybe Bloomberg can pull it off, but those superdelegates make pulling a "Trump" style takeover of the Democratic party much more difficult than it was in the Republican party.

 

The American electorate are angry. You need to put someone up against Trump that people feel will give Washington the finger. That is the candidate who will win. Political philosophy is mattering much less on the ground than perceived allegiances towards the establishment.

 

I'll watch this one though with cautious optimism. Hope he takes the right attitude. His middle finger is going to need an excercise regime.

 

Isn't the US economy doing rather well....why so much animosity against Donald

Just now, baansgr said:

Isn't the US economy doing rather well....why so much animosity against Donald

Do you have a year?

The best president since R. Reagan.

9 minutes ago, Monomial said:

He's an interesting possibility.  I think his chances really come down to 2 things:

 

1) Can he convince the "superdelegates" of the Democratic party to give him the nomination. Sanders was by far the better choice in 2016. The Democrats lost because they went with their crony, Clinton. The people were suitably unimpressed.

 

2) I don't agree with his assessment about "moderate Republicans" being needed. He is just trying to justify his position to Democrats. I think even Sanders would have defeated Trump. The problem is not about political leaning. The problem is people want someone who is going to overturn the status quo. "Change we can believe in" got Obama elected, and that "change" is still a point of laughter everywhere in flyover country when you talk about it.

 

Obama did nothing to fight the establishment. Ultimately that is what got Trump elected. If you want to beat Trump, you have to be meaner and more disruptive towards the Washington establishment than Trump is. Anyone who can win, is a candidate that the parties don't want to win. It is an interesting situation. Maybe Bloomberg can pull it off, but those superdelegates make pulling a "Trump" style takeover of the Democratic party much more difficult than it was in the Republican party.

 

The American electorate are angry. You need to put someone up against Trump that people feel will give Washington the finger. That is the candidate who will win. Political philosophy is mattering much less on the ground than perceived allegiances towards the establishment.

 

I'll watch this one though with cautious optimism. Hope he takes the right attitude. His middle finger is going to need an excercise regime.

 

Nope. In response the 2016 the DNC greatly weakened the power of superdelegates. So if he wins the nomination won't be much of a factor.

 

I happen to disagree with a lot of your premises.

 

I think Sanders would have lost badly against 45 in 2016. Yes he's likeable and he's authentic but he would have been badly red baited which always works in American politics. 

 

Sanders wasn't going to be nominated regardless of the super delegates. Hillary Clinton won the nomination by massively beating him in VOTES.

 

Bloomberg represents backing away from the self destructive American Maoist style revolution where experts are kicked out and even non partisan experience is disdained.

 

So I disagree with you about what voters want now. They want experience, stability, reasonableness and SANITY as a reaction the horror show of troll chaos from the white house. 

Edited January 13, 20206 yr by Jingthing

3 minutes ago, allexx said:

The best president since R. Reagan.

Then you won't support any democrat. It's a given that 45 has a loyal core of at least 35 percent. No point in bothering trying to persuade people that aren't open to being persuaded.

33 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So I disagree with you about what voters want now. They want experience, stability, reasonableness and SANITY as a reaction the horror show of troll chaos from the white house. 

 

You and I must be interacting with very different Americas.  This is why I maintain the country needs to break apart.  Nobody that I speak to that voted for Trump wants stability and more of the same. Such disparate views can never be reconciled.

 

1 minute ago, Monomial said:

 

You and I must be interacting with very different Americas.  This is why I maintain the country needs to break apart.  Nobody that I speak to that voted for Trump wants stability and more of the same. Such disparate views can never be reconciled.

 

Not sure why you're so focused on people that voted for 45.

He only won by about 70,000 votes in four states.

The obviously very flawed Clinton won more popular votes than any candidate in American history.

45 has electoral advantages but he is beatable!

I don't discount that you're in a specific bubble but in my view the facts are much better reflected in the linked article. 

In other words I think the majority of Americans are much more moderate and much more amenable to competence, stability, and normality (with progress made of course on vital issues like health care) than you do. 

45 must go!

What matters is to beat 45.

Who can do that best of the choices among the democrats?

Obviously, BLOOMBERG.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/11/its-bernies-moment-its-bloombergs-race/

 

Quote

It’s Bernie’s moment. But it’s Bloomberg’s race.

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Monomial said:

This is why I maintain the country needs to break apart.

Naw dude, its just the same old urban vs rural, elites vs regulars, Coast vs Heartland, etc. No biggy. The anti Trumpers will get over it as the USA proceeds to move forward. Once 2020 comes and Trump gets relected and the Congress goes Repub, watch how things go gangbusters then.

 

Bloomberg is actually an accomplished guy even though he has some silly political positions. He did a good job in NYC, although he now has to apologize for the unwoke things he did. That being said, if it was him against the rest of the Dem field, he would be the only one I would distastefully pull the levers for, since ideological purity has to go bye bye some times.

 

In point of fact, he is the best candidate against Trump in the Dem field in terms of the electorate as a whole. But the socialists dont like him, he cant compete with Trump vis a vis the black/"latino" vote, and hes boring and whiny. 

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't discount that you're in a specific bubble but in my view the facts are much better reflected in the linked article. 

 

 

Keep in mind that if you have the temerity to suggest that I am in a "specific bubble" then you must also by definition be in a "specific bubble".  To deny that anger and disillusionment was the primary motivator that thrust Trump into the Whitehouse is to deny a huge segment of the American public.  And it is one that will continue to grow unless you address their concerns today.

 

I don't like Trump, and would prefer to see him gone. But I am not being intentionally oblivious about the reasons he is there.

 

The more you try and deny the sea change that is occurring in America, the worse things will get. If you succeed in getting Trump out of office without addressing the underlying reasons most people support him, then the next demagogue that makes it into the Oval Office is going to be even worse.

 

You are mistaken if you think the wave that elected Trump wants stability. You may want that, but they want change. And the more you deny them that change, the more radical they will become. 

7 hours ago, webfact said:

I'm spending all my money to get rid of Trump," Bloomberg told Reuters

Well he probably made most of it in the giant stock market gains since Trump came in.........

7 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Naw dude, its just the same old urban vs rural, elites vs regulars, Coast vs Heartland, etc. No biggy. The anti Trumpers will get over it as the USA proceeds to move forward. Once 2020 comes and Trump gets relected and the Congress goes Repub, watch how things go gangbusters then.

 

It is definitely split along the rural/urban lines as you point out, but the divide that exists today is much more serious than in the past. Even Warren Buffet has recognized "pitchforks" in the future if things don't change.  Don't underestimate what is happening here. This is a divide that likely can not be bridged. Nobody is going to come around. It is the kind of divide that I believe will eventually lead to the states calling for a Constitutional Convention that will reshape the entire the country, or more likely, break it apart.

 

Look how quickly the Soviet Union broke up once the unthinkable became thinkable.  That is where we are headed, and it is because Washington is no longer serving the people of the country. "Stability", as JT wants, is simply accelerating this trajectory.

 

7 minutes ago, Monomial said:

It is definitely split along the rural/urban lines as you point out, but the divide that exists today is much more serious than in the past.

I dont agree. I think the divide is smaller than folks think, and its magnified by a political/media class that has a financial interest in stoking the flames. We could go on and on as to why but that would require our own little topic.

 

However, I think that one of the things that may tell who is right here, either me, the spewing fount of all universal knowledge or you is the upcoming election. A crushing victory by Trump with a Repb congress shows one thing, a loss by Trump shows another, etc. We shall see. ????

 

 

Edited January 13, 20206 yr by Nyezhov

14 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I dont agree. I think the divide is smaller than folks think, and its magnified by a political/media class that has a financial interest in stoking the flames. We could go on and on as to why but that would require our own little topic.

 

However, I think that one of the things that may tell who is right here, either me, the spewing fount of all universal knowledge or you is the upcoming election. A crushing victory by Trump with a Repb congress shows one thing, a loss by Trump shows another, etc. We shall see. ????

 

 

I guess that means we won't be hearing from you until the election is over.

7 hours ago, ezzra said:

That's the folly with every candidate, they always think and convince others they can do better, much better in fact than the other they're trying to replace, and when the get elected, guess what? Oh, we didn't know how big a mess the previous president left us with, so bare with us, will get it right, and they never do...

and that is the same with any politician in any country