Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#91

Post by eej71 »

octonion wrote: post #53
eej71 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that this is true, though I have no numbers to back it up. He appeared to run a cost effective campaign. The endless free coverage provided by pundits and commentators who continuously mocked was transformed (by him) into a strength. He also made full use of social media to reach as many people as he could. I'd be hard pressed to name another candidate who so effectively used twitter. The slogan and the hats…

Populists win elections by scapegoating groups like Jews, socialists, intellectuals, Muslims, blacks or immigrants (depending on which year it is).

This is a popular narrative, but I suspect the reality is - many of these named groups also voted for Trump. Consider this front line report in Ohio.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/outside-coas...

"“OK. You want to talk about Trump? I voted for Trump!” I asked him if he was pulling my leg. He laughed. “No way. I may be a Muslim, but I am a businessman first and I am not stupid. Many Muslims here did. Under the table.” He added with a big smile: “We are Americans. We have diverse views also.”"

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#92

Post by karatestomp »

Loughla wrote: post #30
tyfon wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer; I am in no way supportive of Trump or most of his policies. However as an outsider (I'm not American), he actually seemed more on message and resonated more with his base than his opponent in 2016 so when Hillary became the nominee for the Democratic party I actually bet 100 NOK with my co-worker that Trump would win.

Living in the midwest, as soon as Hillary "won" the nomination, I knew Trump would win. People who don't like him genuinely underestimate the support his base provides. There is a reason republicans are falling all over themselves to lick his boots. He controls the power now.

> Living in the midwest, as soon as Hillary "won" the nomination, I knew Trump would win.

Exactly the same, for (probably—also Midwestern) similar reasons. As soon as he Wile-E-Coyote'd over the cliff of his first couple big scandals in the primary and made it clear that the secret to being scandal-impervious was simply never to look down, that plus his message meant I started telling people he'd probably win the nomination. He sounded like a mash-up of every Republican I'd ever talked to, and even kinda like a lot of older-school Union Strong sorts of Dems—not like a Republican politician or "intellectual" or media figure, mind you, but a voter, which is entirely different. Not even Palin had a message that close to what you might overhear at the local coffee, beer, & bait shop. It was uncanny.

Then Hillary became his opponent and while everyone else was laughing about the whole thing I was like, "Uh oh. Shit. Trump's probably gonna win. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not, fact is she's widely hated and, hate to break it to you, it's not just die-hard Republicans or irredeemable misogynists who feel that way. Should they hate her? Doesn't matter. They do."

And here we are. Sigh.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#93

Post by sigmaprimus »

octonion wrote: post #41
sigmaprimus wrote: post #25

I'm looking forward to the debate tonite, hopefully Bloomberg will get to show everyone what kind of candidate he really is. I still think his entire campaign is just a twisted way to get around campaign contribution limits and possibly a bulwark to keep the wacko socialist candidates from winning the nomination. Hopefully he proves me wrong and is a real candidate that will be able to stand toe to toe with President…

Improving society is "wacko"?

[flagged]

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#94

Post by leftyted »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #90
leftyted wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was Hillary Clinton "buying the election" when she outspent Donald Trump roughly 2:1? Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike? My vote isn't for sale and I assume that's true for other Americans. If I thought otherwise, I'd have a hard time convincing myself that democracies can work.

Hillary outspending Trump 2:1 is a ridiculous way to look at it. When you combine the PAC/SuperPAC money spent for Trump with the Kremlin GRU efforts, it seems to me that Trump (including 3rd party efforts to help Trump and/or reduce Dem turnout) outspent Hillary roughly 100:1.

> Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike?

You could have just said "yes".

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#95

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

danans wrote: post #81
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #57

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I am ok with Bloomberg spending some of his money. Granted, 300MM to him like approximately $20 to me, but still.. Do not misunderstand me. His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly. That said, I am perfectly fine with him finally spending at least some of his vast fortune instead of hoarding it like a dragon. Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket…

> Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate. What about the votes of the people you influenced in his direction? If just 2 other people turn to him as a result, your vote against him has been effectively negated. Perhaps the $2500 means more to you than the vote against Bloomberg? If so, that's fair. A lot of people could use that kind of money, and I don'…

I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest. I do not subscribe to the 'they are basically children, we have to protect them'.

To the candidate I believe in I give my donation. For someone I believe, I will spread their message for free. Him? He has to pay.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#96

Post by notaharvardmba »

cvwright wrote: post #87
sigmaprimus wrote: post #25

I'm looking forward to the debate tonite, hopefully Bloomberg will get to show everyone what kind of candidate he really is. I still think his entire campaign is just a twisted way to get around campaign contribution limits and possibly a bulwark to keep the wacko socialist candidates from winning the nomination. Hopefully he proves me wrong and is a real candidate that will be able to stand toe to toe with President…

Love them or hate them, the one nice thing about Bloomberg and Trump is that, finally the billionaires are stepping out of the shadows. Instead of just bankrolling some frontman who looks good for the cameras, they are running as candidates themselves now. Back in 2015 or 2016, The Atlantic had a great article that highlighted the billionaire donors behind each of the (traditional) Republican candidates in the presid…

And perhaps in this case, rather than some adjunct media agency (i.e. Fox News), the candidate has his own networks already...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#97

Post by jacob019 »

rdtsc wrote: post #72

Interesting. Now that the cat is out of the bag any mention about him from any acquaintance is just going to make me think they got a check from Mike and make me dislike him more each time. Does buying support like this work? "Hey family, Mike Bloomberg is awesome, we should all vote for him". That just feels so artificial and fake, but maybe if the phrase gets repeated enough people start believing it... > Outvote a…

"Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth." -Joseph Goebbels, Nazi

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#98

Post by pmoriarty »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #57

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I am ok with Bloomberg spending some of his money. Granted, 300MM to him like approximately $20 to me, but still.. Do not misunderstand me. His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly. That said, I am perfectly fine with him finally spending at least some of his vast fortune instead of hoarding it like a dragon. Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket…

"His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly."

How about subvertive of the democratic process?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#99

Post by ineedasername »

grumple wrote: post #75

So he's hiring a bunch of barely-over minimum wage workers to spread his message... and? What do you think the other politicians are doing with the millions they raise? This isn't a story.

It's only barely over minimum wage if it takes you a full-time job's worth of time to do it. This seems like the type of thing you could do in a little bit of spare time.

As for why it's a story: Well, there's was (and still is) a bit of controversy over the role that technology, specifically social media, played in the the 2016 election. What Bloomberg is doing fits right into that theme. It also raises questions about what is advertisement, and what is individual "speech", because the former generally has to be identified as such in the context of a political campaign. Posting a status update on Facebook isn't by definition an ad, posting such an update in support of a political candidate doesn't have to be either... but if you're making those posts and you also happen to be getting paid by the campaign? Does each update and DM need to say, "This tweet was paid for by 2020 Bloomberg for President"? Does it need to have a link to Bloomberg stating, "I'm Michael Bloomberg, and I approve of this ad."? Logistically how would he even do such a thing for each and every paid social media interaction?

In short, it's a story because it sits are the nexus of technology, politics, and general societal discourse.

Post reply on HN