Trump vs. Sanders: The Anti-Koch Election

Interesting that the two front-runners have both denounced the pernicious effects of super-PAC money in elections.

If these two guys win their respective nominations, where will the Koch brothers go? Obviously, they'll pull out all the stops to prevent an election where they are effectively shut out of the decision-making process. But we've seen before, billionaires cannot buy elections if the issues are clear, and especially if both sides of the contest agree that the Koch brothers do not belong behind the curtain, pulling unseen levers.

This election cycle could be very, very interesting.

Trump & Sanders have now won New Hampshire, and while this is a long way from having won the nominations, the talking heads on TV are stuttering and spitting over the result.

How could this happen, they bemoan.

Well, it's because people want candidates who aren't bought & paid for.

Don't know why they should be sputtering about it. Sanders has been leading in all the polls there for many months.

Yes, but they don't want to believe the polls.  Money is supposed to rule politics.

It's so "messy" and unpredictable when elections are left up to voters.

Don't forget, most media outlets in this country aren't independent anymore either.

NoCoPilot wrote:

If these two guys win their respective nominations, where will the Koch brothers go?  

I'll tell you where they go: Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, the sixth wealthiest person in the U.S. (8th in the world) has already stated he'd consider getting in the race as an independent if either Trump or Sanders win their respective party nominations.

He said he would self-fund, but what do rich people like better than anything else?  Spending other people's money.

With up to a billion (with a 'b') dollars pledged by the Kochs and their myriad PACs to prevent a populist taking office, you can bet they would back Bloomberg to the hilt.

And Bloomberg News is already greasing the skids.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-01/growing-koch-network-tries-to-shed-secretive-image
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-20/just-how-much-does-koch-industries-pollute-
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-29/koch-brothers-group-can-be-asked-for-donor-list-by-california
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/6a2b513e-cc1f-4b3f-9ca0-fb6d14b731a3

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell for Bloomberg to get a significant portion of the vote. I'm not too sure from whom he would leach his votes, but he would just be a spoiler - like Ralph Nader.

Surveys still show Sanders beating Trump in the general election. Here and here. Other polls show the same outcome. That would be a hoot! The fubbing Refucklicans would go nuts.

_Howard wrote:

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell for Bloomberg to get a significant portion of the vote.

The way Koch brothers' money could affect the outcome is through negative advertising.

Both Sanders and Trump have agendas which are, shall we say, fanciful. A concerted and well-funded campaign could paint mBloomberg as the only candidate with both oars in the water. The only candidate who would be able to work with Congress. The only candidate who is fully hinged.

It could work.

Well, Bloomberg would get the lion's share of the midget vote.

Bloomberg's social agenda is an anathema to the Koch brothers and their super-PACs, but his financial agenda -- particularly the part about slashing taxes for billionaires -- might just push them to hold their noses and support him anyway.

I don't believe that the Koch brothers and their ilk have any concerns other than their personal wealth. Gay marriage, abortions, etc., mean nothing to them unless it enhances their ability to make huge sums of money and not pay taxes.

NoCoPilot wrote:

I'll tell you where they go: Michael Bloomberg.
He said he would self-fund,

Be careful of that term "self fund."

Donald Trump says that he is self-funding, but when one looks a little closer, the term loses  all meaning.

Trump has made a big deal out of "self funding," mentioning it a lot. But is it the truth? Like many (most?) things Trump says, the answer is a big No!

Trump has donated a couple hundred thousand to his campaign. He has also loaned his campaign a few million. How does this work? Well, Trump decides what interest rate he wants the campaign to pay when the money is paid back to him. This interest rate is not controlled and can be as high as a risky credit card. Eighteen percent? Thirty percent? There are no controls and there have been recorded instances of candidates collecting these high interest rates.

Does anyone believe that Trump will not solicit campaign donations - which will then go directly into his pockets - with interest? Trump can run a long, and losing, campaign and profit greatly from it. Is it hard to believe that he would keep that in mind? Another big No!

John Oliver, in the video I posted, addressed this.

Trump has loaned his campaign $17 million & change.

He has "given" his campaign $250,000 and change.

The difference is, he can pay himself back for loans, tax-free, out of campaign contributions.  

He has so far collected $7 million + change in contributions from poor deluded donors.

Therefore, he needs to stay in the race at least until another $10m is donated, plus 30% interest (or $22.1m).  If this is another of his cockamamie money-making schemes it looks like he's done an epic fail again.

Bloomberg announced today he is not running.

Maybe he's smarter than the rest. Probably. Definitely.

I don't imagine for a minute that the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy and the American Enterprise Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council and Americans for Tax Reform and Club for Growth and Freedom Partners and all the rest are just going to sit on their hands on the bench.

No, they'll figure a way to get back in the race.

They'll have to wrestle the RNC convention away from Trump, and that'll be very painful and disruptive.  But I expect they'll find something monumental enough to disqualify Trump, and then they can bring in "their guy" to swoop into the nomination.

Paul Ryan?  Possibly.

I got into a facebook argument the other day. Somebody goofed on Jeb! and mentioned the Bush dynasty. So then some jerk said that if we didn't like dynasties, we should steer clear of the Clinton dynasty too, and vote for Trump. I pointed out that the Clintons didn't have a dynasty, but in true Trump fashion he doubled down, insisting that Bill + senator Hillary counted. I remain unimpressed by the argument.

Maybe Kochs etc would try to force Jeb! on us?

I don't have any doubt that a Hillary presidency would be in effect a third term for Bill.

Unlike the Bushes however, I'm not completely horrified by the idea -- Bill was way too cozy with Wall Street and way too socially conservative, but overall he wasn't a terrible president.

Unlike both Bushes.