How likely is it that either of the two ultra-rich Democratic Party nomination contenders, Tom Steyer or Michael Bloomberg, will win the chance to lose to President Donald Trump in November 2020? The answer is not very. That’s what so many said about candidate Trump, though, right? In reality, however, there really is no comparison at all between that improbable Republican and these two insufferable Democrats – and not least among the many differences are their respective attitudes toward money and the electorate.
Even before what turned out to be the worst day ever for progressives – the day Trump descended that escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy – the real estate mogul knew that he needed more than money to win; he needed a message and he had one: Make America Great Again. It was more than a slogan. It encapsulated a populist, America first agenda in which the people, not the federal government, were the important ones.
Vote Steyer Because He’s Great?
By contrast, Steyer has no discernable message except congressional term limits (worthy of discussion but completely unrealistic) and “Impeach Trump.” Beyond that, the hedge fund manager running to lead the party that pretends to hate hedge fund managers spends his time talking about himself. His pitch for president, in a nutshell, is this: “Look at what I’ve achieved! Aren’t I great? You ordinary people will never replicate my success, of course, which is why you need me to govern you. Also, orange man bad.”
Tom Steyer, perplexed by the lack of awe in the common man?
Saturating primary states with political ads appears to be Steyer’s version of campaigning. A recent Politico article, noting that the candidate has “massively outspent” other Democrat candidates on social media ads, examined the effect of all-Steyer-all-the-time on New Hampshire voters: “Some Granite staters said they’re seeing Steyer’s ads dozens of times a day,” the article reports. Steyer’s return on investment in New Hampshire? A whopping 3.3%, according to the most recent Real Clear Politics poll averages.
Taxing the Poor Into Obedience
Compared to the Democrat primary contest’s most recent entrant, though, Steyer is one missed dividend check away from Skid Row. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already allocated stupendous amounts of money to an anti-Trump ad campaign – and that’s before he even put a dime into his own campaign.
Bloomberg is hardly a “man of the people.” In fact, he appears to neither like nor trust most Americans, as is clear from something he said in 2018 to his globalist pals at the International Monetary Fund:
“Some people say, well, taxes are regressive. But in this case, yes, they are. That’s the good thing about them because the problem is in people that don’t have a lot of money. And so, higher taxes should have a bigger impact on their behavior and how they deal with themselves.”
Bloomberg, famous for his taxing of soda, went on to ask his audience: “The question is do you want to pander to those people?” To be clear, “those people” referred to low-income Americans. The multi-billionaire was making the case that poor people should be taxed to the point where they do not have any disposable income and, therefore, cannot afford sugary drinks, cigarettes, or anything else that might damage their health.
Michael Bloomberg, and his knowing smirk
Let that sink in. This is a man who believes that “those people” are too stupid and/or too irresponsible to make good decisions; their bad behavior must be stamped out by allowing them to keep so little of what they earn that they have no choice but to adopt a lifestyle of which Bloomberg approves. Ironic that a bloody Brit – namely, Yours Truly – feels compelled to point out that this is exactly the kind of imperious attitude that compelled colonial Americans to tell George III, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to take a hike.
Also ironic is Bloomberg’s distaste for the idea of American citizens owning guns, without which they would not have been able to throw off British rule.
Of course, if elections came down only to the amount of money spent by any one candidate, Hillary Clinton would now be gearing up for her re-election campaign. She certainly outspent the man who defeated her because his message was far more powerful than his money. Steyer and Bloomberg, between them, will spend on their combined campaigns enough money to regenerate several inner-city neighborhoods but when the 2020 election comes around, they will, like Clinton, only be left with the honorary title “Failed presidential candidate … “
~
Read more from Graham J Noble.
