What Would It Take for Bloomberg to Buy Your Vote?

[Sanitary Stache]

One thing he could do is create a fund that throws off 40K per year for 50,000 families each chosen by a board made up of home birth midwives from each state.

[bacchi]

He could give $100 million to the top 10 largest cities to build low/no income housing for the homeless.

He could support an estate tax starting at $5M, indexed to inflation, that grows increasingly high until it hits 90% at $100 million. The tax would pierce trusts and family corporations.

[DadJokes]

$10k sounds fair

[GuitarStv]

Vote buying is electoral fraud . . . and assuming that laws matter any more, he would immediately be impeached for doing this.

[Kris]

Vote buying is electoral fraud . . . and assuming that laws matter any more, he would immediately be impeached for doing this.

Apparently that's okay now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/trump-black-voters-cash-giveaways-108072

[GuitarStv]

We've already established that a sitting president is above the law.  If he's Republican and Republicans are in the senate at least.

[Michael in ABQ]

Vote buying is electoral fraud . . . and assuming that laws matter any more, he would immediately be impeached for doing this.

*cough* free college *cough* wipe out student debt *cough* *cough*

[GuitarStv]

Vote buying is electoral fraud . . . and assuming that laws matter any more, he would immediately be impeached for doing this.

*cough* free college *cough* wipe out student debt *cough* *cough*

. . . are proposed platform policies.  Just like the tax cuts for the rich on the Republican side.  Quite different than spending personal money to bribe voters directly.

[waltworks]

I've always been confused about why rich democrats/liberals don't put up some major money to encourage liberal voters (this could basically just be anyone living in CA, for example) from blue states to move to, say, Wyoming. It would not take all that much to turn WY blue, or any number of other low-population states in the West.

Bloomberg could probably afford to just build a free house for anyone who wants one in WY until the state flips. I'm pretty sure that would be perfectly legal, too, since you wouldn't be directly buying any votes, just relocating voters.

I mean, if I had $50 billion or whatever, that's the kind of scale I'd be thinking on.

-W

[Sanitary Stache]

I hadn't considered him actually paying me cash for my vote, but I am definitely open to that.  10K seems totally reasonable, but not a penny less.  Though I had considered going to NH to canvass for Warren and handing out $5 dollar bills at people's front doors.

I like the idea of relocating voters to flip states, and I would probably sign up for that with the right set of compensation for the move.

I was thinking more along the lines of what can he do with his money to convince me to vote for him, because policy statements and advertisements aren't going to do it.

[PDXTabs]

I've always been confused about why rich democrats/liberals don't put up some major money to encourage liberal voters (this could basically just be anyone living in CA, for example) from blue states to move to, say, Wyoming. It would not take all that much to turn WY blue, or any number of other low-population states in the West.

I've long thought that this was an obvious move for certain groups to take on their own. Eg, before gay marriage was legal the LGBTQ community could have totally overwhelmed the elections in WY (population 600K) if even a small fraction of the US LGBTQ community had moved there. Of course, that could have lead to some ugly interactions with the locals if they thought their communities were changing too fast.

[px4shooter]

Vote buying is electoral fraud . . . and assuming that laws matter any more, he would immediately be impeached for doing this.

He has been buying politicians for a long time. He was nice enough to remind the folks in our state legislature of how he donated to their campaigns and each of them followed his line for the votes his organization wanted.

[JLee]

I've always been confused about why rich democrats/liberals don't put up some major money to encourage liberal voters (this could basically just be anyone living in CA, for example) from blue states to move to, say, Wyoming. It would not take all that much to turn WY blue, or any number of other low-population states in the West.

Bloomberg could probably afford to just build a free house for anyone who wants one in WY until the state flips. I'm pretty sure that would be perfectly legal, too, since you wouldn't be directly buying any votes, just relocating voters.

I mean, if I had $50 billion or whatever, that's the kind of scale I'd be thinking on.

-W

I don't even think a free house would get me to move to Wyoming.

[mm1970]

nothing really if he wins the primary.  I'd vote for a trained monkey if he wins the dem primary.
I already mailed my primary ballot tho, so too late for him.

[waltworks]

I don't even think a free house would get me to move to Wyoming.

Sure, but there are people who would. Laramie is a great town with fun stuff to do outdoors, for example.

You could also do the opposite and incentivize conservative people in swing states to move to, say, Idaho. Or do both.

-W

[Glenstache]

He would have to be not Trump.

[DaMa]

If he gets the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for him for $0.

[PDXTabs]

In the primary? He'll have to come down hard on climate change.

After the primary as the democratic presidential candidate? He'll need a pulse.

[Zamboni]

He would have to be not Trump.

If he gets the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for him for $0.

In the primary? He'll have to come down hard on climate change.

After the primary as the democratic presidential candidate? He'll need a pulse.

I'm fully on board with all of these lines of reasoning.

[desk_jockey]

I haven't taken the time to learn much about his political positions because I don't think he'll be in the race for the long haul, but if he had run as moderate republican or a slightly right-of-center, Perot-esque independent I would paid him (i.e. donated to his campaign). 

[Ladychips]

I read an article recently that Texans are highly concerned about the number of Californians moving to Texas.  It was ok when they all moved to Austin, but when they started moving to mid size places like Abilene the threat of turning Texas blue (or more realistically purple) becomes real.

[YttriumNitrate]

My state will be called for Trump within about 10 minutes of the polls closing (unless Buttigeg is the nominee, then it will take 20 minutes), so I'd sell my vote quite cheaply. $20 sounds about right for the general. If Bloomberg is still in the primary race on May 5th, I'd be looking for an order of magnitude more.

[Sanitary Stache]

General election - no question.  I'll take the middling racist billionaire over the aggressive racist billionaire for free.

[By the River]

Vote buying is electoral fraud . . . and assuming that laws matter any more, he would immediately be impeached for doing this.

Apparently that's okay now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/trump-black-voters-cash-giveaways-108072

I think its been known as "street money" or "walking around money" for years and years.  The Atlantic had an interesting article in 2013.  Title & sub-head
             'Walking-Around Money': How Machine Politics Works in America Today
               The practice of handing over cash to turn out votes used to be an urban Democratic specialty.
               Are rural Republicans getting in on the fun?

Legal? No but its also not new.   

[Kris]

Vote buying is electoral fraud . . . and assuming that laws matter any more, he would immediately be impeached for doing this.

Apparently that's okay now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/trump-black-voters-cash-giveaways-108072

I think its been known as "street money" or "walking around money" for years and years.  The Atlantic had an interesting article in 2013.  Title & sub-head
             'Walking-Around Money': How Machine Politics Works in America Today
               The practice of handing over cash to turn out votes used to be an urban Democratic specialty.
               Are rural Republicans getting in on the fun?

Legal? No but its also not new.

Of course it's not new. Hell, it was happening a hundred years ago.

But at least they used to try to conceal it.

[MasterStache]

He doesn't need to buy my vote. Hell I would vote for a shit sandwich over Trump.

[desk_jockey]

He doesn't need to buy my vote. Hell I would vote for a shit sandwich over Trump.

I'm ready to donate to shit sandwich's campaign. 

[Norioch]

If he gets the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for him for $0.

[HPstache]

$1,000 he can have it.  The electoral college makes my vote useless

[Travis]

I read an article recently that Texans are highly concerned about the number of Californians moving to Texas.  It was ok when they all moved to Austin, but when they started moving to mid size places like Abilene the threat of turning Texas blue (or more realistically purple) becomes real.

Oregon is concerned about the number of Californians moving in.

[DadJokes]

I read an article recently that Texans are highly concerned about the number of Californians moving to Texas.  It was ok when they all moved to Austin, but when they started moving to mid size places like Abilene the threat of turning Texas blue (or more realistically purple) becomes real.

Oregon is concerned about the number of Californians moving in.

Is Oregon red? Why would they be concerned?

In Tennessee, I hear a lot of complaints about people moving here from Illinois and, to a lesser extent, California.

[wenchsenior]

I read an article recently that Texans are highly concerned about the number of Californians moving to Texas.  It was ok when they all moved to Austin, but when they started moving to mid size places like Abilene the threat of turning Texas blue (or more realistically purple) becomes real.

That article made me laugh out loud.  Given the way the state's politics work, maybe they'll have so start building a 'big beautiful wall around it' to prevent it eventually turning purple or blue.  It's coming someday...I hope I live long enough to see it. 

[FIPurpose]

At first I thought: "there's no way the electoral college would be close enough to make playing for a state like Wyoming worth it." Then I looked at the map and immediately saw. Oh Trump wins PA, NC, FL, and AZ, he'd win by 2. So yeah, any red western state could swing it.

Wyoming would likely not be the target because it's deeeeep red. Even with only a voting population of 255k, Trump still won the state by 118k votes.

He won Alaska by 47k votes, though it's pricier to get people to move there.
PA - 44k
AZ - 91k
MT - 101k
SD - 110k
FL - 112k
WY - 118k
ND - 123k

Even if you found completely willing people that you could only really siphon off CA, IL, WA, NY, MA, NJ, and MD. You make a play at 2-3 of the states. You'd end up with I think a couple problems:

1. State governments would immediately start playing shenanigans.
2. The cost of moving a handful of people is maybe 10k each. The cost of moving 100k people is exponentially more.

You could try a half and half approach, moving some people out and some people in. But I would guess that the people most willing to move out would fall on the blue side of things. The red voters are the most entrenched people to their territory.

It's an interesting thought, but it's strategy that a team could play out over 10-20 years in order to capture more power (especially in the Senate).  Not something that will win you 2020.

[achvfi]

I am surprised that no one mentioned, the big elephant in the room for FI-RE community " 'Free' health care for all".

[DadJokes]

I am surprised that no one mentioned, the big elephant in the room for FI-RE community " 'Free' health care for all".

That gets mentioned daily somewhere on the forum.

It's pretty widely known that Americans pay more for healthcare than any other country in the world.

[Roboturner]

Why stop at Bloomberg? I'd hold an open auction on both sides - highest bidder gets the vote. If you are independently wealthy and want me to vote for someone, you're welcome to bid too!

[Davnasty]

I am surprised that no one mentioned, the big elephant in the room for FI-RE community " 'Free' health care for all".

I believe OP is asking about Bloomberg using personal funds to gain votes. Universal healthcare is a policy position.

[Michael in ABQ]

I read an article recently that Texans are highly concerned about the number of Californians moving to Texas.  It was ok when they all moved to Austin, but when they started moving to mid size places like Abilene the threat of turning Texas blue (or more realistically purple) becomes real.

Oregon is concerned about the number of Californians moving in.

That's been the case for decades.

The concerns are two-fold, one is that many Californians can sell their house and then afford to overpay in neighboring states, thus driving up home prices for everyone already there. The other concern is just the difference in culture/politics. For Oregon and Washington it's not much difference, but for a place like Idaho or Texas it would be more pronounced.

[mm1970]

nothing really. Win the nomination, and have a pulse.

[waltworks]

Ah, you don't have to be too obvious about it.

I'm Michael Bloomberg, and I decide to fund some new ventures in purple or red states. They can lose money, I don't care that much.
-Housing developments that are super inexpensive, centered around microbreweries and parks and trail systems.
-Universities/university scholarships/cheap rental housing for university students.
-Art galleries, coffee/pot shops, etc.

Since I'm Michael Bloomberg, I can fund a LOT of that stuff. I can attract tens of thousands, at a minimum, of young hip people to those locations. Over 10 or 20 years...

-W

[Michael in ABQ]

At first I thought: "there's no way the electoral college would be close enough to make playing for a state like Wyoming worth it." Then I looked at the map and immediately saw. Oh Trump wins PA, NC, FL, and AZ, he'd win by 2. So yeah, any red western state could swing it.

Wyoming would likely not be the target because it's deeeeep red. Even with only a voting population of 255k, Trump still won the state by 118k votes.

He won Alaska by 47k votes, though it's pricier to get people to move there.
PA - 44k
AZ - 91k
MT - 101k
SD - 110k
FL - 112k
WY - 118k
ND - 123k

Even if you found completely willing people that you could only really siphon off CA, IL, WA, NY, MA, NJ, and MD. You make a play at 2-3 of the states. You'd end up with I think a couple problems:

1. State governments would immediately start playing shenanigans.
2. The cost of moving a handful of people is maybe 10k each. The cost of moving 100k people is exponentially more.

You could try a half and half approach, moving some people out and some people in. But I would guess that the people most willing to move out would fall on the blue side of things. The red voters are the most entrenched people to their territory.

It's an interesting thought, but it's strategy that a team could play out over 10-20 years in order to capture more power (especially in the Senate).  Not something that will win you 2020.

Libertarians came up with a similar idea years ago with the Free State Project. The idea was to get 10,000 liberty-minded people to move to New Hampshire which would be enough to swing local, and eventually state elections. I think there's been at least a few thousand people that have gone through with it and they have made some headway at the local and state level. If you think about how few people are politically engaged (a little more than half of eligible voters actually vote, far less outside presidential elections), even a few thousand can make a difference in a small state.

[Travis]

I read an article recently that Texans are highly concerned about the number of Californians moving to Texas.  It was ok when they all moved to Austin, but when they started moving to mid size places like Abilene the threat of turning Texas blue (or more realistically purple) becomes real.

Oregon is concerned about the number of Californians moving in.

That's been the case for decades.

The concerns are two-fold, one is that many Californians can sell their house and then afford to overpay in neighboring states, thus driving up home prices for everyone already there. The other concern is just the difference in culture/politics. For Oregon and Washington it's not much difference, but for a place like Idaho or Texas it would be more pronounced.

I read an article recently that Texans are highly concerned about the number of Californians moving to Texas.  It was ok when they all moved to Austin, but when they started moving to mid size places like Abilene the threat of turning Texas blue (or more realistically purple) becomes real.

Oregon is concerned about the number of Californians moving in.

Is Oregon red? Why would they be concerned?

In Tennessee, I hear a lot of complaints about people moving here from Illinois and, to a lesser extent, California.

What Michael said. Everyone has issues with increasing California emigrants for economic, cultural, and political reasons. My Arizona friends are terrified that the state is turning purple, but even other deep blue states just don't like Californians.

[TempusFugit]

We've already established that a sitting president is above the law.  If he's Republican and Republicans are in the senate at least.

Just as we've established that a sitting Democratic party president is above the law.  Just as we have established that the presumptive (and then actual) presidential nominee for the Democratic party is above the law.

It's almost like everyone looks the other way for members of their team. Weird. 

[Brother Esau]

We've already established that a sitting president is above the law.  If he's Republican and Republicans are in the senate at least.

Just as we've established that a sitting Democratic party president is above the law.  Just as we have established that the presumptive (and then actual) presidential nominee for the Democratic party is above the law.

It's almost like everyone looks the other way for members of their team. Weird.

Wasn't there once a democrat pres. that was impeached by the house and then found to be "above the law" by a republican senate?

[PDXTabs]

It's almost like everyone looks the other way for members of their team. Weird.

But that sure wasn't the case for Nixon. Nixon said that he was above the law and then his own party reminded him that he wasn't. This will allow future historians to come up with a general idea as to when the USA became a banana republic.

[GuitarStv]

We've already established that a sitting president is above the law.  If he's Republican and Republicans are in the senate at least.

Just as we've established that a sitting Democratic party president is above the law.  Just as we have established that the presumptive (and then actual) presidential nominee for the Democratic party is above the law.

It's almost like everyone looks the other way for members of their team. Weird.

I wasn't talking about the impeachment solely.

I was referring to the standing DOJ policy that prevented Robert Mueller from charging Trump for obstructing his investigation.

Literally the only way that a president can get in trouble is impeachment . . . which is not a legal proceeding, but a political one.

[TempusFugit]

We've already established that a sitting president is above the law.  If he's Republican and Republicans are in the senate at least.

Just as we've established that a sitting Democratic party president is above the law.  Just as we have established that the presumptive (and then actual) presidential nominee for the Democratic party is above the law.

It's almost like everyone looks the other way for members of their team. Weird.

I wasn't talking about the impeachment solely.

I was referring to the standing DOJ policy that prevented Robert Mueller from charging Trump for obstructing his investigation.

Literally the only way that a president can get in trouble is impeachment . . . which is not a legal proceeding, but a political one.

Yes, we are in agreement there.  It is not a legal proceeding which makes it so laughable to hear all the politicians talking about legalities.  It is about politics.  In dont mean that entirely in the pejorative, but in the practical. Anything congress deems impeachable is impeachable.   If there were a strong majority within public opinion to remove a president , it would happen. 

The Nixon ref above is a example of how far both political parties have fallen.  In that time, the party still had some power. The republican elders told Nixon that the game was up.  And Nixon was very popular within the party, but they saw the writing on the wall.  Neither party has any power any longer over who adopts their name and runs under their banner.  Its sad and a real problem for our nation.   

I am afraid that the democrats are about to learn the same lesson that the repubs learned with Trump.  Someone can come along that doesnt share the values you thought your party stood for and take the name and the brand and destroy it.   And then you see all the lickspittles pay homage to a person that they would’ve shunned a few months ago because its all about winning now.  Not having the best  ideas, or the best character.  Just winning. 

This is exactly why the founding fathers did their very best to constrain democracy.   A person can be thoughtful and reasonable, but people are stupid biased morons.  This is why the senate is designed to act as a brake on the passions of the congress.  This is why the government is designed to be slow and hard to move in and dramatic way.  Because you cannot trust the mob.

[Kris]

Watching the Democratic debate now, and Bloomberg in my opinion is a bloody corpse on the stage. He is... not doing well.

I hope he will make good on his promise to put his money toward defeating Trump even if he is not the nominee. Because I do not think he is gonna be the nominee.

[PKFFW]

This is exactly why the founding fathers did their very best to constrain democracy.   A person can be thoughtful and reasonable, but people are stupid biased morons.  This is why the senate is designed to act as a brake on the passions of the congress.  This is why the government is designed to be slow and hard to move in and dramatic way.  Because you cannot trust the mob.

Seems they failed miserably at the task then.

Here we have a situation in which a single person seems to be completely untouchable and allowed to do whatever they want.

[Kyle Schuant]

I read a scifi novel where there was a world which had an auctionocracy - the 300 highest bidders (secret ballot!) became the parliament for that year. They might represent themselves or a union or whatever. The funds raised from the auction were the government's funds for that year. Apart from that, that's pretty much what you've got now :D