Mediaboss Marketing

House Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), on CNN, August 2, 2020

The typical reaction to the death of a tyrant whether by revolutionary violence or natural causes is not one ofgriefand sadness but joyous celebration. It is not hard to understand why: when a nation and its oppressed citizenryare finally liberated from the suffocating, savage grip of fascist dictatorship, they feel joy for themselves, their families and the future of their nation. That is the same reason people have always hoped for, or work toward, the death of despots: they want to rid themselves ofthose who impose tyranny on them.

When Romanians learned in 1989 of the summary execution of their despised dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, residents t[ook] to the streets to celebrate the downfall of the dictator. In 2006, many Chileans celebrated the death of dictator Augusto Pinochet, as a cacophony of horns sounded as hundreds of thousands took to streets and plazas across the country when it was announced the man who ruled ruthlessly for 17 years had died at age 91, a week after suffering a heart attack. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro is dead, so celebrate we will, read a 2016 South Florida Sun-Sentinel op-ed by a Cuban-American who appeared to genuinely believe that Castro was a vicious dictator,and thus expressedthe natural, normal reaction of someone who believes a country has been freed from the grip of a despot. So typical is this reaction to the death of a leader perceived as a dictator that history is replete with countlesssimilarexamples over many decades and across the world.

Yet in the U.S., a radically different dynamic is playing out. Over the past several years, but particularly in the months heading into the 2020 election, it has become extremely common for prominent Democrats and their media allies to refer to President Trump as a dictator, a fascist, a tyrant hellbent on destroying U.S. democracy, a genocidal racist, and even a Nazi. And yet, the overwhelming reaction in those mainstream precincts to the news that the fascist dictator has contracted a potentially lethal virus is to hope and pray that he makes a speedy recovery whereby he can resume his democracy-destroying, genocidal, tyrannical, fascist rule.

In March of last year, as CNN put it, two powerful House Democrats invoked Adolf Hitlers actions in Germany and the treatment of Jews during World War I and in the 1920s to warn against the direction the US is moving in, with both saying Donald Trumps presidency presents an unprecedented threat to democracy.One of the Democratic lawmakers who explicitly invoked Nazism and Hitler as the proper prism to understand Trumps rule was House Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina. Just two months ago, Clyburn went back on CNN and warned that Trump was preparing to hold despotic power even if he loses, pronouncing: I feel very strongly that he is Mussolini, Putin is Hitler.

CNN, March 20, 2019

Yet when Clyburn learnedthis week that our modern-day Hitler who is on the precipice of ending democracy had contracted a fatal virus, he did not celebrate but instead, for some reason, lamented the news, wishing the First Family a speedy and complete recovery. Why would you possibly wish a speedy recovery rather than a quick demise to someone you believe is a Hitler-like perpetrator of genocide whose recovery would enable fascism to continue? That seems counter-intuitive and counter-productive.

MSNBC star Rachel Maddow began invoking Nazismand Hitler in connection with Trump as early as 2016, when Politico reported that, once Trump secured the GOP nomination, the on-air personality has been reading up lately on Adolf Hitlers rise to power in Germany, the MSNBC anchor told Rolling Stone, because thats where she thinks the United States could be headed. Maddow has notoriously spent the last four years manically obsessed with the claim that Trump has such a corrupt relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin that it is the Kremlin, thanks to Trump, which secretly runs the U.S. and is using that power to plot harm to large numbers of Americans by, for instance, seizing the power tocut off their heat in the dead of winter. Maddow was explicitlylinking Trump to classic fascism as early as 2015.

Yet upon learning that the fascist, Kremlin-controlled, Nazi-like dictator had become ill, Maddow launched a one-woman crusade demanding that her fellow liberals pray earnestly for his recovery. She first posted an extremely effusive tweet: God bless the president and the first lady. If you pray, please pray for their speedy and complete recovery Presumably in response to widespread liberal confusion and criticisms wait, you spent four years telling us hes a fascist racist Nazi-likedespotand now youinsist that we pray for his health? Maddow devoted a segment on her show in which, with great passion and emotion, she urged her viewers to react to Trumps COVID diagnosiswith the same compassion and through the same prism as if a friend who smokes cigarettes learned she had lung cancer:

These sentiments were not unique to Maddow. Indeed, that all decent people should hope and pray for Trumps speedy recovery was the virtually unanimous consensus of leading Democratic Party figures, expressed by Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Jane and I wish the President and First Lady a full and speedy recovery, said the Vermont Senator.

How is this messaging we hope the racist fascist genocidal Nazi-like dictator gets well soon and returns to work? not creating extreme cognitive dissonance among those who believed that they actually were sincere in their maximalist denunciations and invocations of fascism and Nazismregarding Trump? Shouldnt liberals not just be confused but overtly disgusted at their leaders who want Trump to survive and return in full health to imposing fascism and genocide on Americans?

Here, for instance, is the fairly representative reaction of a left-wing political operative the Democratic Socialist of Americas Jack Califano, who served as the 2020 Sanders CampaignsDeputy Distributed Organizing Director to Maddows segment urging that all good liberals pray for Trumps recovery and avoid wishing ill on their fellow human being:

That reaction makes logical sense on its own terms. If one really does believe that Trump is a genocidal Nazi a Hitler-equivalent fascist dictator engaged in the deliberate mass slaughter of a particular ethnic or religious group (genocide) then it would be not just irrational but madness and moral bankruptcy to hope that the Nazi genocidal fascist makes a speedy recovery and returns to work. But thats exactly what virtually every prominent Democratic Party leaderis doing. Is Califano regretful about having worked for the presidential campaign of someone who sends warm wishes to a genocidal Nazi?

There are afew potential explanations that may account for this extremely unusual and confounding behavior of praying for, rather than against, the well-being of a fascist dictator. Perhaps Democratic leaders are simply pretending to be hoping for Trumps well-being for political purposes while secretly hoping that he suffers and dies. Or perhapsnational Democratic politicianshave ascended to a state of spiritualelevation rarely seen in modern political history, in which they are capable of praying for even those they most dislike, including ones they believe are imposing fascism on their nation? Or perhaps, maybe more likely, Democratic leaders do not really believe the things they have spent four years saying about Trump and, like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney before him, are applying such labels of historic evil to him for political advantage but still see him as one of them, whom they intend to rehabilitate and honor once he is out of power.

Whatever else is true, their behavior upon hearing that someone they claim toregard as a genocidal racist fascisttyrant has contracted a fatal virus is extremely unusual when compared to how people throughout history react when learning of similar news. It is worth interrogating what accounts for such a baffling dynamic.

View original post here:
Why Are Democrats Praying for the Speedy Recovery of a Fascist Dictator? - The Intercept

Listen to the Podcast Episode

State Assemblymember Todd Gloria and San Diego City Councilmember Barbara Bry would likely take the city in different directions on issues like affordable housing, transportation and climate action.

Aired: October 5, 2020 | Transcript

The San Diego mayor's race is among the most consequential on the local ballot this election season, with big implications on city finances, housing and homelessness, transportation and climate action. And for the first time in recent history, both candidates in the runoff are Democrats.

Assemblymember Todd Gloria is generally considered the frontrunner against City Councilmember Barbara Bry. Gloria came in first in the primary, winning 41.5% of the vote compared to Bry's 22.9%. Gloria has also secured more high-profile endorsements from the San Diego County Democratic Party, business groups, labor unions and elected officials.

But the race appears to have tightened since the primary Bry and Gloria were virtually neck-and-neck in an opinion poll commissioned by the San Diego Union-Tribune and 10News. The poll was criticized as overrepresenting Republicans and underrepresenting independents, though pollster SurveyUSA stood by its methodology.

Fundraising reports have also suggested a more competitive race than what was apparent after the primary. Bry significantly outraised Gloria from mid-February through the end of June. Gloria then outraised Bry from July to mid-September and ended the reporting period with more than three times as much money in the bank.

Gloria also has a lopsided advantage when it comes to independent expenditures, which are made by political action committees, known as PACs. Those committees, which candidates are forbidden from controlling, take money from individuals, corporations and unions and can often tip the scales in close elections with targeted mail campaigns. Bry has sought to turn Gloria's advantage with independent expenditures against him, casting him as beholden to special interests.

Who are the candidates?

In 2016, Barbara Bry was elected to represent City Council District 1, which covers the neighborhoods of La Jolla, University City and Carmel Valley. Prior to entering politics, the 71-year-old Bry had a successful business career, co-founding an e-commerce company and incubating other tech startups.

Her platform includes banning dockless scooter sharing companies and short-term home rentals. Among her proudest accomplishments are helping defeat the 2018 "Soccer City" ballot measure, demanding an independent audit of the city's overbilling of water customers and asking tough questions about the city's bad record on real estate deals.

Bry said she was motivated to run for mayor after she got to City Hall and noticed a culture of secrecy, where big decisions were made behind closed doors. If elected, Bry would be San Diegos first female mayor since 2000, when Republican Susan Golding left office.

"I'm running for mayor first of all to bring accountability and transparency to City Hall (and) to lead an inclusive economic recovery as we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has exemplified our existing inequities," Bry said. "And it's why I believe my private sector experience is so important in creating jobs, in terms of how we're going to have an economy that's going to get everyone back to work."

Gloria, 42, was elected to the state Assembly in 2016 after serving on the City Council for eight years, including six months as interim mayor. He would be San Diego's first elected mayor who is openly gay and the first with Latino, Filipino or Native American heritage.

Gloria said he was proud of starting work on the city's Climate Action Plan, passing an increase to the city's minimum wage and navigating the budget crisis during the last recession. He said that experience prepared him to tackle the current budget deficit related to the pandemic.

"I served as the city's budget chair for six of the eight years that I was at City Hall, was able to take the city from massive budget deficits as a result of the Great Recession (and) turn them into surpluses and reserves that thankfully will help mitigate some of the cuts that will be necessary going forward," he said.

Housing and homelessness

Voters frequently cite homelessness and housing affordability as among their top concerns. And those problems could get even worse as the economic fallout from COVID-19 puts thousands of low-income households at risk of eviction.

Both candidates say they support building more housing near public transit to relieve San Diego's housing shortage, which has led to low vacancy rates and higher housing costs. But they differ on a critical issue related to subsidized affordable housing: Measure A.

Measure A would authorize the city of San Diego to issue up to $900 million in bonds to fund affordable housing. The money could be used for new construction, preserving rents on existing low-income housing or buying up market rate housing and making it affordable.

Bry said she has not yet made up her mind about Measure A because it would increase property taxes, a cost she said would be passed on to renters at a time when the pandemic is already making it difficult for many households to make ends meet.

"We still have many San Diegans out of work," she said. This ... could be a very challenging time to raise taxes."

Gloria supports Measure A, which needs a two-thirds majority to pass, saying that too often when San Diego is tasked with solving big problems, "later" becomes "never."

"Even in this pandemic, even in this recession, even with people marching in the streets, the most common thing that is shared with me as a concern by San Diegans is homelessness," he said. "They see thousands of our neighbors sleeping outdoors, unsheltered, and they want something done about. And this is a way we can do something about it."

Bry has attacked Gloria for supporting SB 1120, a statewide housing bill. The bill, which passed the legislature but died because it missed the deadline for a final vote in the Senate, would have allowed property owners to build duplexes on lots otherwise zoned for single-family homes. Bry has characterized the bill as Sacramento overreach, while Gloria has said it's a simple way to create more housing for the middle class.

Transportation and climate action

San Diego's next mayor will have a big say over the future of transportation in the county and its efforts to meet state and local climate targets. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is preparing a 30-year regional transportation plan with big investments in public transit, including new rail lines and rapid bus services.

A notable exception in SANDAGs new vision from previous plans is that it will not include any freeway widenings. It does, however, envision new toll and carpool lanes to be built within the existing freeway network. State law requires the next plan to result in significant cuts to greenhouse gas emissions and car travel.

The San Diego mayor has a powerful vote on the SANDAG board of directors, and opposition from the next mayor could sink the transportation plan entirely.

Gloria supports the vision, though he said much of the details need to be worked out.

"We actually get the active transportation, the mass transit network, the highway network that actually gives consumers choices," Gloria said. "This is ... what we need to do under our obligations in our Climate Action Plan, it is necessary for our continued economic growth in San Diego and it's necessary to protect our quality of life."

Bry opposes SANDAG's current vision for the transportation plan, saying future technologies such as autonomous vehicles paired with existing transit would be more effective and that San Diego's topography makes the pursuit of new underground rail lines not worth it.

"I think the plan to drill under our neighborhoods to build all of this fixed transit is ridiculous," Bry said.

The two candidates vying to be San Diegos next mayor would each likely take the city in different directions on issues like affordable housing, transportation and climate action. Also, deadly wildfires in California have burned more than 4 million acres (6,250 square miles) this year more than double the previous record.. Most of that acreage has been in Californias ... Read more

Aired: October 5, 2020 | Transcript

Andrew Bowen Metro Reporter

I cover local government a broad beat that includes housing, homelessness and infrastructure. I'm especially interested in the intersections of land use, transportation and climate change.

To view PDF documents, Download Acrobat Reader.

See the original post:
Mayoral Candidates Bry and Gloria Are Two Democrats With Differing Views On City's Top Issues - KPBS

The Democratic National Committees (DNC) flat-out rejection of anti-Israel language in the final version of its 2020 platform demonstrates that progressives should not be so quick to declare victory in the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party.

Yes, a candidate backed by progressives toppled incumbent Rep. Eliot EngelEliot Lance EngelHouse Democrats 'alarmed' by allegations about US diplomat in Brazil Democratic chairman subpoenas Pompeo for records related to Biden, Burisma Sherman joins race for House Foreign Affairs gavel MORE (D-N.Y.). Engel, the powerful chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee and a longtime supporter of Israel, will surely be missed. While this upset garnered headlines, moderates in races from coast to coast defeated an overwhelming majority of progressive insurgents. And that is a good thing for a nation that is eager to heal after years of fractious politics.

Despite the drubbing of progressive candidates, Slate magazine called Engels loss a cautionary tale for Democrats nationally. The Jerusalem Post called it a changing of the guard for Democrats. These estimations more than misread the political tea-leaves. They misrepresent reality.

As NBC points out, the vast majority of Justice Democrats who have run over the past two House cycles have lost. In 2018, Justice Democrats endorsed 65 non-incumbent candidates; only 24 survived their primaries and, in the end, just seven were elected to Congress.

The name Justice Democrats has proven to be an oxymoron. The groups strategy is divide and conquer. They single out Jews and Israel for scorn, allowing an unacceptable level of anti-Semitic rhetoric in their ranks; they seek to topple capitalism in favor of socialism.

Yes, a few progressives won high-profile races. And winning doesnt always come down to money or even the power of incumbency. As an insurgent candidate herself, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezTrump holds mini-rally at Florida airport Overnight Defense: House passes 5B Pentagon spending bill as part of broader package | One dead, eight missing after Marine Corps training accident | White House says Trump stands by controversial nominee House approves amendments to rein in federal forces in cities MORE (D-N.Y.) was dramatically outspent but still beat Rep. Joe CrowleyJoseph (Joe) CrowleyProgressive Bowman ousts Engel in New York primary How a progressive populist appears to have toppled Engel Bowman declares victory over Engel in New York primary as votes still counted MORE, a powerful member of the House Democratic leadership. Engel held similar stature and fundraising advantages over his opponent and still lost.

When progressives win, they follow a familiar playbook: They find soft targets of opportunity, like reliable but longtime incumbents who dont have social media star power and seem out of touch. Progressives win when they appeal to the changing demographics of their district. They win when they have a scapegoat, which all too often is Israel. And when they do claim a scalp, they declare victory for their movement.

But with greater regularity, progressives lose. They lose because they are on the wrong side of their electorate; their views are repudiated. Calling for economic boycotts of Israel or failing to repudiate anti-Semitic remarks do not comprise a winning strategy in a nation in which Jews play a vital role in civic and economic life.They dont win in a nation that is desperate to heal from years of division.

Nor should progressives declare victory in the presidential primaries. The darling of the Justice Democrats, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersVermont has a chance to show how bipartisanship can tackle systemic racism The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - At loggerheads, Congress, White House to let jobless payout lapse Sanders calls for the end of the filibuster following Obama's remarks MORE (I-Vt.), was defeated. He was hopelessly out of step with mainstream voters who comprise the majority of the electorate, and he had a fraught relationship with Jewish voters.

Instead, the winner was Joe Biden, who, as a senator and as vice president, went out of his way to bridge and heal Americas divides, not contribute to them.The 2020 DNC platform, with regard to Israel, is further evidence of the strength of center-left candidates and the weakness of the appeal of progressive policies to mainstream voters. In its rejection of language that would condition aid to Israel and refer to Israel as an occupier, the DNC has responded decisively to those on the radical fringe of the party.

The victorylap in this year's Democratic primaries goes to center-left candidates who stayed true to America's ideals and allies,including tolerance of Jews and support for Israel. Rumorsof the demise of such candidates, as the saying goes, are greatly exaggerated.

Jack Rosen is president of the American Jewish Congress, which advocates on behalf of American Jews and Israel through public policy, diplomatic and legislative actions.

Go here to read the rest:
Progressives lost the battle for the Democratic Party's soul | TheHill - The Hill

Tom Perez, Democratic National Committee chair, speaks during an event in February in Charlotte, N.C. Joe Raedle/Getty Images hide caption

Tom Perez, Democratic National Committee chair, speaks during an event in February in Charlotte, N.C.

Updated at 7:25 p.m. ET

Democrats met remotely Monday afternoon to approve a lengthy policy platform that seeks to balance the interests of the Democratic Party's more moderate and liberal factions.

The virtual meeting came three weeks ahead of what will be one of the strangest party conventions in U.S. history: No delegates and few Democratic dignitaries will travel to Milwaukee to nominate former Vice President Joe Biden to be the party's standard-bearer. Instead, the convention will be held mostly remotely, with only Biden and a few other speakers appearing from Milwaukee.

The draft platform, released last week, draws heavily from a report issued this month by joint task forces organized by Biden and his onetime campaign rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. It tries to bridge the gap between Sanders' progressive politics and Biden's more moderate approach to governing.

Dozens of Democratic members considered amendments to the plan Monday.

They approved amended language opposing President Trump's deployment of federal agents to quell protests in Portland and other cities, as well as planks affirming support for unions, and for expanding paid sick leave. By Monday evening, the Democratic National Committee had not shared the exact language of the amendments.

The draft party document released last week endorses universal health care and makes it clear that low- or no-cost coverage for every American is the party's eventual goal. Rather than backing a single mandatory government-run health insurance program, however, it calls for adding a public option to the existing Affordable Care Act.

The platform does nod to "Medicare for All," the policy backed by Sanders, saying: "We are proud our party welcomes advocates who want to build on and strengthen the Affordable Care Act and those who support a Medicare for All approach."

The platform also sets aggressive goals for combating climate change, including making all American power plants carbon neutral by 2035 and adding 500 million solar panels and 60,000 wind turbines to the country's electricity grid within the next five years.

It also calls for a $15 minimum wage, mandatory paid family leave, more federal gun control, broad changes to federal sentencing guidelines and drug laws, and many other changes that most Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House have supported for years.

Platform committee co-chair Denis McDonough, who served as former President Barack Obama's chief of staff, called it the "boldest Democratic platform in American history."

Still, anticipating virtual floor fights and frustration from progressive activists who want the party to set an even more aggressive policy course, Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said at the top of the committee meeting that "we should never confuse unity with unanimity, nor should we confuse debate with division."

Indeed, as the platform committee meeting went on, several proposed amendments were rejected, including an attempt to shift platform language to fully support Medicare for all, and another to more forcefully condemn Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

Like most Zoom meetings in 2020, the Democrats' committee session had its buffering blips, unintentional mute moments and cross-talk.

But the Democrats' attempt to vote virtually was still more than Republicans tried: Trump and Republican Party leaders have decided to adopt the party's 2016 platform in full at their convention next month, rather than craft new language.

Read more:
What's In The Democratic Party Platform For 2020 - NPR

Mike Bloomberg, seen here speaking to supporters and staff in March in New York City, spent $1 billion of his own fortune to run for president but exited the race early on. Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Mike Bloomberg, seen here speaking to supporters and staff in March in New York City, spent $1 billion of his own fortune to run for president but exited the race early on.

Updated at 10:58 a.m. ET

When a billionaire with a history of investing generously and strategically in campaigns promised to spend whatever it takes to defeat President Trump, it made Democrats sit up and take notice.

And how did they interpret that pledge from former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg?

"It meant spending about a billion dollars," said Jim Messina, who ran President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign. "It meant making sure that Donald Trump did not have the typical incumbent advantage on finance, and it meant helping us catch up in a couple places where Trump was well ahead of us, which was digital and data."

It is the most ambitious campaign promise ever made by someone who isn't still running, and Bloomberg fully intends to fulfill it, according to former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, the national political chair of Bloomberg's short-lived primary campaign, in which the candidate spent $1 billion of his own fortune. But Nutter also says that "whatever it takes" can't be defined simply by a specific dollar amount; instead it's about how and where Bloomberg spends his money this year.

Bloomberg has already spent well over $350 million for Democrats this cycle, according to his team, including the following investments:

Altogether, it makes Bloomberg the single biggest donor to the Democrats this year, and it's having an impact on the ground, according to party strategists in battleground states.

North Carolina is one of those, and it has pretty much every political prize on the line in November with competitive contests for president, U.S. Senate, U.S. House seats, governor and control of the state Legislature, with redistricting looming next year.

"What the Bloomberg campaign did right was they put money into field organizing," said state Rep. Graig Meyer, who is in charge of fundraising and recruiting for Democratic Statehouse candidates. "And so that getting campaign operations up and running, building a volunteer base, setting up the structure for direct voter contact all of that is happening because they made that investment through the DNC."

But to give Democrats in North Carolina a real advantage, Bloomberg could do a lot more, according to Meyer.

"In no way has the Bloomberg operation put direct money into down-ticket races besides through the overall coordinated effort [with the DNC]," he said, adding, "$30 or $50 million is probably the right amount that would be a completely transformative game changer. I imagine Bloomberg could afford to do $30 to $50 million in North Carolina if he wanted to."

The Democratic leader in the North Carolina House of Representatives was even tougher on Bloomberg.

"I am the person he looked in the eye and said what he was going to do," said state Rep. Darren Jackson. "I am the person that endorsed him. And I have been the person that reached out to his campaign leadership."

Jackson said he doesn't know what Bloomberg's intentions are in North Carolina, but he adds, "I certainly hoped for help with the House caucus. We have such a once-in-a-decade opportunity. We need his help to take advantage of that. In whatever form he chooses."

In Georgia, Howard Franklin has similar expectations. He was a senior adviser in the state to Bloomberg's presidential campaign, and he is optimistic that Bloomberg will fulfill his pledge.

"I think he did set the bar high," Franklin said.

To make Georgia truly competitive, Franklin says, Bloomberg should make an eight-figure investment.

Georgia is another state with a lot at stake, as a longtime GOP stronghold that appears close at the presidential level, along with two U.S. Senate races due to a special election and competitive U.S. House races in the Atlanta suburbs. It's also felt the brunt of the two major crises of the year, the pandemic and unrest over racial justice.

There's a lot to invest in for Democrats to make the most of their opportunities in the state, according to Franklin: "I think eight figures gets you on the television in the media markets you care about. I think it puts boots on the ground. I think it gets you telephones and social media. And you know, again, with everything the country is going through and the attention that the city of Atlanta, in particular, has gotten, I just think that there isn't a better place to make the case for a more socially just and equitable approach to policing."

Bloomberg is getting pitches like that all day, every day.

Although there's no evidence yet that he is spending all that he promised, that doesn't mean Bloomberg can't or won't in the remaining days of the campaign, now fewer than 100.

Bloomberg has a history of coming in late and spending big. In 2018, he was the single biggest Democratic investor in House races, and the donations he made in September helped flip 21 red districts blue, out of 24 he invested in.

The remaining investments are "still being determined and decided and figured out" according to Nutter: "I mean, this is politics. You don't just kind of throw the money out the window and hope it lands in the right places. Mike makes strategic investments to change outcomes using data and evidence."

In the next month or so, Bloomberg's team says it will be clear how much and where he has decided to invest, and then Democrats can decide for themselves whether they think he's spending whatever it takes.

View original post here:
Bloomberg Vowed To Spend Whatever It Takes To Beat Trump. Democrats Are Still Waiting - NPR