SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
tom steyer
If Bloomberg Wants to Buy an Election, He Should Run as a Republican Against Trump--Not Sabotage Democrats
The mega-billionaire should be running against Trump in the Republican primaries, not as a Democrat. If he actually cared about this country more than stroking his massive ego that is exactly what he would be doing.
Feb 10, 2020
Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg is one of the 10 richest persons in the world, with a net worth approaching $60 billion, depending upon the vagaries of the stock and bond markets on any given day.
For anyone who is not a billionaire, it is almost impossible to grasp just how much money this is for a single human being. It would be like calculating the distance of our planet to a distant galaxy in centimeters. Bloomberg could spend $100 million every single day on his presidential campaign between now and election day in November--basically more than any candidate except Bloomberg and fellow billionaire Tom Steyer have spent so far in the entire 2019-20 election cycle--and he would still have a net worth greater than $30 billion. He would remain one of the 30 richest people in the world.
Think about that. Money basically means nothing to Bloomberg. It makes no material difference to his life--anymore than losing a penny would to most people--to spend all this money. At age 77, why the hell not? And wouldn't it be fun to be president? You only live once.
"Bloomberg could spend $100 million every single day on his presidential campaign between now and election day in November--basically more than any candidate except Bloomberg and fellow billionaire Tom Steyer have spent so far in the entire 2019-20 election cycle--and he would still have a net worth greater than $30 billion. He would remain one of the 30 richest people in the world."
Bloomberg may well be successful. He has already made media corporations hugely profitable by flooding the airwaves with his expensive and slick advertising--he has shown something corporate America knows well: carpet-bombing advertisements works if you can afford it--and this is just the beginning. He has bought off everyone with a pulse so he has a large chunk of the political class on his payroll, with many more to come. He will accordingly get terrific mainstream press coverage, the type any other candidate would like, and Bernie Sanders can't even begin to imagine.
In short, Bloomberg is demonstrating the deep problems of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that permits candidates to spend unlimited amounts of their own money on their own campaigns, especially in a period of breathtaking wealth inequality. Why be like the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson and spend a fortune on other people running for office? You are the smart guy after all; spend it on yourself.
If Bloomberg is successful, this could well become the new normal. Presidential elections will be contests between the wealthy who put their own money on the line. Bloomberg demonstrates that no one else could possibly compete with them in terms of resources. We are already a way down that road in Congressional elections. The already fading notion that this is a functional democracy will take another sharp turn in the wrong direction.
Bloomberg explains his decision to run for president as a concern with how Trump is such a dreadful president and that he is best positioned to defeat Trump, restore integrity to governance, and change his deplorable policies, especially on the environment and guns.
Fair enough. But aside from the issue of billionaires buying elections, there is one other extraordinary flaw in his thinking: Bloomberg should be running against Trump as a Republican, not a Democrat. If he actually cared about this country more than stroking his massive ego that is exactly what he would be doing.
This is not such a crazy idea. For starters, Bloomberg is a Republican, or he was until the tea party and then Trump showed up. He fits the profile of the sort of traditional Republican most Americans have been familiar with for generations. He is pro-business, pro-empire, anti-labor, and not especially sympathetic to the concerns of minorities or the dispossessed. These old-school Republicans were committed to the rule of law, however, and to majority rule.
Now Trump has come in and crystallized currents already growing in the Republican Party, like the "tea party" explosion in 2009-10. With his endless lying and rejection of the rule of law, Trump has led the Republicans toward a stronger embrace of authoritarianism, even, dare I say it, fascism. There are discussions about whether Trump would even leave office were he to lose the 2020 presidential election! The career Republican politicians have capitulated to Trump en masse, hence discrediting this party in toto.
Because of the way U.S. elections are structured, we have a two-party system and it is very difficult to replace one of the existing parties with a new one, despite popular support for introducing new ideas into our politics. So the United States is moving toward an exceptionally dangerous place where one of the two main parties is flirting with fascism and dedicated to maintaining political power with only a minority of the country supporting it. It holds the rule of law in contempt.
Bloomberg could have been a real patriot and applied his billions of dollars to challenging Trump and the fascist trend within the Republican party. He could have done everything possible to expose Trump and to locate and encourage anti-Trump Republicans. He could have supported primary challengers on the Republican side to defeat Trump's allies and enablers. He could have built up a parallel party apparatus employing thousands of Republican operatives at big salaries. He probably would have lost, but you never know for sure until you try. Bloomberg could outspend Trump 20 to 1. He would have been able to force public attention to this issue, and keep it there. He might have made Trump completely crack up. At any rate, he would have had an enormous impact that might have helped to slow and begin to reverse the Trumpian drift.
"If Bloomberg is successful in buying the Democratic nomination... The party could disintegrate enough that Trump waltzes to a second term, precisely what Bloomberg claims he does not want to have happen."
Then, if he failed to get the Republican presidential nomination, Bloomberg could throw his support and his resources to the Democrats, as he claims he plans to do now.
He would have been a patriot, perhaps even a hero.
Instead, he has opted to bring his takeover project to the Democratic Party. The Democrats are currently in a profound struggle for determining the course of the party between their progressive and establishment wings. By most accounts, patching it up by November will be crucial for electoral success. Bloomberg's entrance as an establishment savior has won him understandable support from those Democrats who dislike the progressive trend, and believe, erroneously in my opinion, that Bloomberg is the best bet to defeat Trump in November. If Bloomberg is successful in buying the Democratic nomination, or being the kingmaker who decides it, it will generate such anger and antipathy in the progressive wing of the party to the point where even his billions cannot buy off people to see things his way. The party could disintegrate enough that Trump waltzes to a second term, precisely what Bloomberg claims he does not want to have happen.
The moral of the story for establishment Democrats is don't be seduced by Bloomberg and his billions. He will break up the Democrats and cost them the election if he or someone he supports takes the nomination.
So Bloomberg's legacy would be that he left his own party to the neo-fascist crowd and went on to blow-up the Democrats, keeping the Republicans in control.
That is 180 degrees away from being a hero, or a patriot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nobody Can Build Like I Can Build. Nobody': Watch Winds Knock Down Trump Border Wall
"What a perfect visual metaphor for a presidency fuelled by hot air."
Jan 29, 2020
Mother Nature: 1.
President Donald Trump: 0.
That's the scorecard from the southern border after gusts of wind of up to 37 miles per hour took down a section of the president's much-vaunted border wall in Calexio, California.
The steel wall sections that toppled under the winds, which fell in the Beaufort Scale as "moderate gale" force gusts, were held in place by concrete anchors that had not fully set, according to reporting from the Guardian.
Watch the winds blow the wall over:
News of the collapse drew mockery from opponents of the president's immigration policy.
"Point and laugh everyone, just point and laugh," immigration activist Juan Escalante said on Twitter.
Billionaire Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer quoted Trump's own words in a tweet linking to a news story about the wall's collapse.
\u201c"I own buildings. I'm a builder; I know how to build. Nobody can build like I can build. Nobody. And the builders in New York will tell you that. I build the best product." -@realDonaldTrump\n\nhttps://t.co/Ygj6vKqrdQ\u201d— Tom Steyer (@Tom Steyer) 1580347471
The news even drew amused reaction from across the Atlantic.
"What a perfect visual metaphor for a presidency fuelled by hot air," said Scottish National Party politician John Nicolson.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Vote Climate U.S. PAC's Updated 2020 Presidential Voter's Guide
Voters must choose highest climate calculation.
Jan 28, 2020
With less than one week to go before the Iowa Caucuses in the monumental 2020 elections, and unprecedented action needed to slow climate change, Vote Climate U.S. PAC is releasing our updated, national, 2020 Presidential Voter's Guide
Vote Climate U.S. PAC's Voter's Guide is a tool to help voters make climate change a top, priority. As Americans head to the voting booth in the presidential primaries, the Center for Climate Change Communication's poll says that 71% of Americans want the federal government to do more to address climate change.
Karyn Strickler, President of Vote Climate U.S. PAC said, "Climate change is an existential threat to humanity and our way of life. The first step to slow climate change is to elect the candidate who has the most ambitious plan to get off fossil fuels and put a fee on carbon. It's up to voters to choose the candidate with the highest climate calculation in 2020, perhaps one of our last chances to prioritize climate change in the voting booth. Our Voter's Guide makes it easy for every American to vote climate."
Our unique Voter's Guide assesses every Democrat and Republican running for president. It goes well beyond a normal score card to include not only position, but also leadership, putting a fee on carbon and candidate's climate plan (endorses the Green New Deal, supports carbon dioxide removal, advocates 100% renewable energy by 2030, and keeps fossil fuels in the ground.) Our climate calculations show separation between frontrunners in the Democratic primary.
"The difference between Democratic frontrunners for president on climate change in our Voter's Guide is significant. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Tom Steyer are tied for the highest score, each with an overall climate calculation of 93.75. By contrast Joe Biden's climate calculation is 81.25. With our timeline so short and the climate emergency we face, the difference between a 93.75 and an 81.25 could be the difference between a livable planet and not, when you're electing a U.S. President. Those scores compare to Republican incumbent Donald Trump who is a climate zero," said Karyn Strickler, President of Vote Climate U.S. PAC.
The higher climate calculations for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders comes partially from Joe Biden's failure to advocate for action on climate change as a top priority issue and to advocate for 100% renewable energy by 2030. In his climate plan Biden calls for a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. Senators Sanders and Warren have both committed to 100% renewable energy by 2030.
Vote Climate U.S. PAC's voters guide is accessible and simple to use. Go to our Voter's Guide page, where you can find our climate calculations. Take them into the voting booth and choose the candidate with the highest score. Click the green + button for more details on each candidate. Our Voter's Guide scoring criteria explains how our climate calculations were developed.
Vote Climate U.S. PAC is doing the research now and will rate all U.S. House and U.S. Senate incumbents and challengers, giving climate calculations to each, as we did in 2018. We will also add a "Climate Rankings" page, where we look at the big picture of American politics and climate change, by analyzing our research data for party and regional differences. It will include a national, best-to-worst listing and climate heroes and zeroes.
Slowing climate change will depend upon what we do. We encourage voters to join us in making 2020 a climate-action election.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular