Michael Bloomberg & Georgia Senate Race

B

BarryLee

New member
Georgia senator Saxby Chambliss is retiring and the race is on to replace him. Today Michael Bloomberg announced his support for Michelle Nunn with a contribution of $5200 which is the maximum allowed. However, he can contribute larger amounts to her PAC and run ads of his own supporting anti-gun candidates as he did recently.

Since Georgia has a lot of gun owners Nunn has been pretty quite on the issue. When pushed she basically went into the standard story of her family’s hunting background. Pushed further she said she supported background checks, but gave no specifics. On an assault weapons ban she said it was difficult to measures its success and that it wasn’t really on the table right now. She isn’t making gun control a central part of her campaign, but isn’t really defending the Second Amendment either.

Anyway, if you live in Georgia please pay attention to this race and the various candidates’ positions on issues of personal freedom including gun rights.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/02/14/two-billionaires-line-up-behind-michelle-nunn/

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Michelle_Nunn_Gun_Control.htm
 
Not knowing the details of the people involved, I would advise us for wandering into pure politics other than gun issues.

I will opine that if a candidate starts off with 'hunting' as a cred for the RKBA it is worth as much as the shibboleth that you are are not bigoted as your best friend is a .... from some discriminated against group.

My best friend is my deer rifle and duck shotgun - oh yeah (not there is anything wrong with those activites but they are not the RKBA).

Glenn
 
Bloomberg would not give money to a candidate that is not solidly 100% anti gun.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. In 2006, we had a Democratic takeover of Congress. It was orchestrated by Rahm Emmanuel, whose instruction was to get "butts in seats." The seats got filled, but many of those butts were supporters of the 2nd Amendment (in some cases, more so than the people they replaced).

As far as Bloomberg, he might be trying to tip the scales, but Nunn has been quiet so far on guns. She did make comments about the last Assault Weapons Ban having no measurable impact and that she didn't have much interest in revisiting the issue. Frankly, she's really the best hope he has, but I doubt she'll come through to the extent he wants.

I'm going to get a little political here, because this is my particular arena. Nobody's really going to miss Chambliss. He waffled for a bit on the Universal Background Check bill and needed a bit of strong reminding on that issue. He was utterly wretched on many civil-liberties issues, particularly SOPA and the FISA expansions.

As far as the vultures circling for his seat, it's not a pretty picture. I've dealt with Phil Gingrey. If single-issue voting is your thing, he's strong on gun rights. But like Chambliss, he's terrible on general liberty issues. David Perdue and Eugene Yu seem to check the right boxes on the partisan scorecard, but they've not held office, so they're unknowns.

That leaves us with a guy named Derrick Grayson, who looks good on most liberty issues. His chances of winning are questionable, though.

If Nunn is anything like her father, she'll probably toe the line to the extent it's politically feasible. In Georgia, that means playing nice with the NRA. She may be the devil we know, or she may represent us well.
 
As far as the vultures circling for his seat, it's not a pretty picture.
Click to expand...

Yes, I’ll readily admit that the current group of contenders leaves a little to be desired. Also, I understand and share the admiration that many have for the Nunn name. However, I also realize that Ms. Nunn will caucus with the party of Schumer and Feinstein making it just a little easier to push their anti-gun agenda.

Also, while I’m truly not a one issue voter I believe that changes in Medicare funding, tax reform, defense spending etc. are in a constant state of flux and any undesirable change can be rectified. However, I fear a loss of gun rights could be permanent.

Currently it appears our choices are candidates that overtly support the Second Amendment and others that are quite possibly covet supports of gun control or at least who Mr. Bloomberg believes will be more receptive.
 
If Bloomberg is putting even $1 into a Georgia election, it's not because he thinks Georgians are too fat and need to stop drinking so much soda. Clearly, Bloomberg is supporting the person whom he believes will attack guns and gun owners. Believe me, the guy with a 30,000,000,000 net worth knows more about Ms. Nunn than any of us will ever know!
 
Before I go further, in full disclosure, my little sister and her boyfriend are full on David Perdue supports, like up to and including boots on the ground campaign work for him.

By virtue of my job (both of them), I can't do such things, anymore.

However, that being said, I disliked Sen. Chambliss, and I disliked Sen Nunn, as well.

Single issue voting becomes hard when the other issues are so pressing.

However, Nunn scares me between her Bloomberg funded PAC and her claim of coming from a family of hunters.
 
Single issue voting becomes hard when the other issues are so pressing.
Click to expand...

I don’t necessarily disagree, but wonder if any changes made to gun control laws would be as easily changed down the road as say changes to tax policy. We dodged a bullet, so to speak, with the 1991 AWB and not sure that will happen again. I fear the future battles will be related to “common sense” background checks designed to make gun ownership overly burdensome. As I said my big fear is anything that get’s pushed through will be here to stay.
 
Apparently Bloomberg has made a donation to a PAC supporting Nunn of $350,000.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of money being thrown around on both sides right now.

I'm having trouble figuring out Bloomberg's strategy. He's thrown the majority of his money at safe incumbents so far. I suppose that's so he can claim "victory" when they hold their seats.

So, where do his contributions to Nunn fit into that? I don't know, and I don't think they'll help. The NRA is paying $780,000 to run commercials opposing Nunn in second-tier cities.

All things said, she's gone on record supporting "background checks for terrorists and criminals," which of course means everybody. That enough is alone to make me oppose her.

I'm no fan of Perdue for many reasons, but he's the lesser of two evils on this particular issue.
 
I'm having trouble figuring out Bloomberg's strategy.
Click to expand...

Tom, I work in DC on non gun political issues. Bloomberg's strategy is sound. He has to widen his funding base, are at least appear to do so. His efforts and "movements" are top down astroturfs. Although money works with that, top down astroturfs drink money at high rates, and eventually lose political credibility without some proof of an actual base.

Targeting mostly sure wins makes you look like a winner to your core base constituency and makes you look like a winner to rube fence sitters.

What you have to consider is the demographics involved. The Pew Research is not just instructive telling us the majority of Americans don't know gun murder is down, it tells us the demographics of who holds has the backwards view of that core statistic. It is women. The gender differences on perception of gun murder is stunning. And that is why his group are targeted at women.

I think Bloomberg is the strongest possible adversary on gun rights. In my view it is clear he absolutely understands the political and social dimensions, and he engages in tactics and strategies that would leave NRA in the dust if the NRA were not organic and genuine wide base group.

His sole weakness as far as I can tell is that he doesn't "play well with others."

As far as Georgia in particular, $350,000 for Bloomberg is like any normal person giving $350. And I think it will make a difference and more than possibly put Nunn over the top.

And Bloomberg didn't give that for nothing in return. She may not position herself publically as a strong supporter of gun control, but she will vote for any gun control that has a chance nationally. There are also a myriad of things a Senator can do behind the scenes to add impetus to any issue like to gun control.

The Georgia GOP played with fire selecting Perdue, just like the Va GOP did with Cuccinelli. Having the more moderate candidate is always worth 5 or 10 points in virtually any race. And this race has a libertarian just like Va, who will also siphon votes primarily off of the GOP as in Va
 
Last edited:
I'm no fan of Perdue for many reasons, but he's the lesser of two evils on this particular issue.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to work hard not to puke when I vote for him, but will just for the reasons you state.
 
TDL said:
Tom, I work in DC on non gun political issues. Bloomberg's strategy is sound. He has to widen his funding base, are at least appear to do so. His efforts and "movements" are top down astroturfs. Although money works with that, top down astroturfs drink money at high rates, and eventually lose political credibility without some proof of an actual base.
Click to expand...

hi TDL, PM'd you some questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top