Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Who do you think will win the presidential 2020 elections for the US? I Think it will be Bloomberg
Quote from R. on March 4, 2020, 3:13 pmHi, learning, applying and taking in the experiences from power dynamics, i think Bloomberg will win because like Lucio said in his social power course, true ever lasting power is based on collaborative relationships and when people want you in Power, you will be/stay in power. Not only is Bloomberg very resourceful, he has has many other strings of power. when i read this i instantly thought of Michael Bloomberg. Not only is he one of the richest and resourceful men in america, he is also the most powerful, and this is proven even more so in his endevour of running for presidency. I read recently, that the owner of FOX Media/News was the one to encourage bloomberg to run for presidency and that he would 'back him up', now we all know that the media is highly influential when it comes to programming the masses to make them believe anything they want as we call it, 'the age of spin'. I dont think there is anyone more powerful than bloomberg to ever run for presidency, i mean this guy is spending 7 million dollars a day for his campaigns. What do you guys think? im 19, i may be naive in some areas of the political world, but i certainly have got the gist of this game.
Hi, learning, applying and taking in the experiences from power dynamics, i think Bloomberg will win because like Lucio said in his social power course, true ever lasting power is based on collaborative relationships and when people want you in Power, you will be/stay in power. Not only is Bloomberg very resourceful, he has has many other strings of power. when i read this i instantly thought of Michael Bloomberg. Not only is he one of the richest and resourceful men in america, he is also the most powerful, and this is proven even more so in his endevour of running for presidency. I read recently, that the owner of FOX Media/News was the one to encourage bloomberg to run for presidency and that he would 'back him up', now we all know that the media is highly influential when it comes to programming the masses to make them believe anything they want as we call it, 'the age of spin'. I dont think there is anyone more powerful than bloomberg to ever run for presidency, i mean this guy is spending 7 million dollars a day for his campaigns. What do you guys think? im 19, i may be naive in some areas of the political world, but i certainly have got the gist of this game.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 5, 2020, 7:30 amHe certainly got the money, and money is an important part of winning political elections -I remember one study concluding that it was the candidate with the biggest financial backing who always won the election-.
But I considered that conclusion partially flawed.
It's possible that donors might simply start giving more money to the candidate who is more likely to win as a way to "buy him and his favors". So instead of money predicting the winner, it might be the other way around. Or, at the very least, the two can both influence each other.That being said, in democracies, luckily, money is not the only name of the game.
Most people in the ballot stations aren't going to directly receive money from the candidate in exchange for votes.
And that's where likability, personality, and persuasion skills also matter.Bloomberg entered late with a big splurge of cash, and that made it easy for his competitors to frame him as the deep-pocket guy who wanted to "buy" the presidency.
A very effective way of framing in in very negative terms. Even worse, he didn't have convincing answers against it.In the debates, he looked somewhat stuffy and uptight, and that didn't help his likability score -even more important in Democratic nominations than in Republican ones, since Republicans, higher in power, tend to award more respect to austere personalities-.
He certainly got the money, and money is an important part of winning political elections -I remember one study concluding that it was the candidate with the biggest financial backing who always won the election-.
But I considered that conclusion partially flawed.
It's possible that donors might simply start giving more money to the candidate who is more likely to win as a way to "buy him and his favors". So instead of money predicting the winner, it might be the other way around. Or, at the very least, the two can both influence each other.
That being said, in democracies, luckily, money is not the only name of the game.
Most people in the ballot stations aren't going to directly receive money from the candidate in exchange for votes.
And that's where likability, personality, and persuasion skills also matter.
Bloomberg entered late with a big splurge of cash, and that made it easy for his competitors to frame him as the deep-pocket guy who wanted to "buy" the presidency.
A very effective way of framing in in very negative terms. Even worse, he didn't have convincing answers against it.
In the debates, he looked somewhat stuffy and uptight, and that didn't help his likability score -even more important in Democratic nominations than in Republican ones, since Republicans, higher in power, tend to award more respect to austere personalities-.
