Three Entitled Multi-Billionaires Think They Can Buy The Presidency

Trump may or may not be a billionaire. He claims he is and he certainly will be after he leaves office. But no one knows for sure because he hides his assets and transactions, most of which are unethical-- at best-- and criminal for the most part. But we’ll count him as a billionaire for the sake of this post. He certainly loudly and insistently claims he is. The other two are a Democrat, Tom Steyer, and a whatever serves his shifting interests, Michael Bloomberg, currently pretending-- laughably-- to be a Democrat. All three seem to believe they can buy elections. Bloomberg, and to a lesser extent Trump, have done so in the past.

On Christmas Day, Politico’s Maya King, looked at Bloomberg’s and Steyer’s obscene spending so far. They’ve poured around $200 million into broadcast and digital advertising so far-- and Bloomberg’s camp say he hasn’t even begun yet. The two of them have spent more than all the other candidates for 2019-- combined. Bloomberg’s and Steyer’s name recognition isn’t as high as the front-runners but Bloomberg is getting his name out there in. big way. He isn’t well-liked though. As Democrats get to know him better, they don’t like him at all. Only Tulsi has lower favorability ratings among Democratic primary voters at this point.

“We’ve never seen spending like this in a presidential race,” said Jim McLaughlin, a Republican political strategist who worked as a consultant for Bloomberg’s mayoral bids in New York. “He has a limitless budget.”

The question isn’t whether anyone else will come close to matching Bloomberg or Steyer’s ad spending. Rather, it’s whether all that spending is making any difference.

At present, the two remain mired in single digits in the polls. Steyer isn’t spending at the same stratospheric levels as Bloomberg, yet with $83 million in ad buys so far, he’s still far outpacing everyone other than his fellow billionaire. The next highest spender on ads is Pete Buttigieg at $19 million.

Unlike Bloomberg, who is attempting to jumpstart his campaign on Super Tuesday March 3, Steyer is largely focused on the four early voting states. He has spent nearly $37 million in Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire-- much of it on digital ads. Since joining the race in July, he’s more than doubled the combined ad spending of Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the early states.

In South Carolina, Steyer has plowed extensive resources into television spots and a flurry of mail while building up a sizable ground game. His 60-person team in South Carolina is the largest of his four state operations. He’s beginning to see some results: according to the most recent Quinnipiac poll, Steyer is now in 5th place there with 5%, one percentage point behind Buttigieg.

Just as important, he’s polling at 4% with black voters, who make up more than half the Democratic electorate in South Carolina. That places him slightly ahead of Sen. Cory Booker, who‘s made the state a focus, and Buttigieg.

“For someone who’s come in as late as he did in the game, he’s doing impressively well in that regard,” said Kate Franch, chair of the Greenville Democratic Party in South Carolina. “And that’s relative to everyone who’s not Joe Biden.”

Bloomberg is spending in all 50 states but is targeting the big, delegate-rich Super Tuesday states that can make or break his campaign. He’s spent more than $13 million on advertising in California, which offers 416 delegates, the single biggest haul in the primary. He’s also spent more than $13 million each in Texas, another Super Tuesday mainstay, and Florida, which votes one week after Super Tuesday and offers 219 delegates.

Bloomberg is also swamping smaller markets like Wilmington, N.C., where his ads have run up to 36 times each day, according to data from Advertising Analytics.

Bloomberg has also shelled out an additional $13 million in Florida, which votes one week after Super Tuesday and offers 219 delegates.

“We’re running out of ways to describe [the ad expenditures] at this point,” said Nick Stapleton, vice president of analytics at Ad Analytics, a television ad tracking firm. “It’s pretty difficult to make a comparison...You’re looking at one-third of Obama’s 2012 total [ad] spend through the general [election] in one month.”

Bloomberg is beginning to see incremental growth in national polls after his saturation-level spending. Since entering the race in mid-November, Bloomberg’s polling numbers have slowly climbed: in Monday’s Quinnipiac University national poll, he had his best showing yet, polling in fifth place at 7%.

Doug Wilson, a North Carolina-based political strategist, said he sees the former New York mayor’s advertisements “at least three times a day.”

“You still have to get a sizable portion of the African-American vote to be able to be competitive but with him running ads as he has it has increased his numbers nationally,” Wilson said, referencing his growing standing in the polls.

Christian Heiens, a political marketer with Saber Communications, a right-leaning media buying agency, said he isn’t convinced Bloomberg and Steyer can continue to rise through their spending. He compared their bids to Jeb Bush, the former Florida GOP governor who in 2016 spent close to $55 million on advertisements in early primary states but underperformed before finishing fourth in South Carolina and quitting the race altogether.

“After you see the same TV ad 10 times, it’s not going to have as big an impact,” Heiens continued. “And that’s not just in politics, that’s in anything in marketing.”

The rest of the Democratic field has also been critical of the billionaires’ spending, though for different reasons. Warren has accused Bloomberg and Steyer of trying to buy their paths to the nomination, while Biden and Andrew Yang have argued that the ad blitzes are more a waste of money than smart politics.

They’re not the only skeptics of how much Bloomberg and Steyer can accomplish with their saturation-level spending.

“I don’t sell anybody short, but rich white billionaires don’t have any real appeal to black voters in the South,” said Brad Coker, a pollster with Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy. “Billionaires have never really done well with Southern voters.”

Except Trump, who won every single southern state against Hillary in 2016-- although almost entirely with white southerners.

In 2016, Hillary spent $563,756,928 and outside allies spent another $206,122,160 on her campaign. Trump spent $333,127,164 and allies spent another $118,217,367 for him. (The value of assistance for Trump from illegal foreign sources, primarily Russia, the Saudis and Israel, is not included in these figures.) Bloomberg, whose net worth is around $65 billion, is the wealthiest presidential candidate in history. He’s 33 times richer than Steyer and at least 14 times richer than Trump, maybe a great deal more than that.

There is no official FEC filing for Bloomberg yet, but the latest filings showed that Steyer had raised $49,645,130.22, of which $47,597,697.36 was self-funded. Of the non-billionaires, Bernie has raised the most-- $74,399,588.43-- although some of the other candidates are also financial contenders:

• Elizabeth- $60,339,946.81
• Mayo Pete- $51,549,046.28
• Status Quo Joe- $37,785,293.38

Biden and Mayo are being largely funded by billionaires and SuperPACs. If you'd like to contribute to Bernie's 100% grassroots campaign with no billionaires, no special interests looking for favors, and no SuperPACs, you can do so by clicking on the DownWithTyranny ActBlue thermometer above. Elections shouldn't be for sale to the wealthiest crooks, not in this country. Trump has certainly proven without doubt that the old line about not being able to buy very rich self-funders is absurd and utterly false. Trump may be the wealthiest person to ever occupy the White House and he also the most self-serving and dishonest.

Two Democratic Billionaires Are Making A Mockery Of Democracy

Here in California, we don't usually get inundated with campaign ads, at least not the way Iowa and New Hampshire-- and more recently, Nevada and South Carolina, do. California has always been too late in the campaign season. And California is, by far, the country's most expensive media market. But that all changed. California is a SuperTuesday state now and early voting will already be in full swing by the time tiny Iowa caucuses. So... this past weekend Bloomberg blanketed the airwaves of the state with millions of dollars in ads. One politically-unsophisticated but fired-up anti-Trump friend was sold. She's voting for Bloomberg... if she remembers to vote. Everyone else who mentioned having seen the ads was disgusted and turned off. "The billionaire is trying to buy the election" is what I heard most. Bloomberg's strategy is to crush Status Quo Joe and Mayo Pete and then present himself as the alternative to either of the two actual Democrats in the race, Bernie and Elizabeth. His greed-driven, ravenous consultants say he has enough money to achieve just that and force America into a general election pitting two billionaires against each other and making everyone pick between two evils.

Yesterday Politico published a piece by Trent Spiner, New Hampshire voters to Steyer: Make it stop!, along the same lines. In New Hampshire, he sat through 17 Steyer ads in an hour of watching Pentatonix music on YouTube. "Some Granite staters," he wrote, "said they’re seeing Steyer’s ads dozens of times a day-- and it’s become more grating than ingratiating... Even some of Steyer’s local staff privately acknowledge the volume of ads has gone overboard."

Steyer has massively outspent other Democratic candidates on social media in an effort to gain traction in polls and ensure he makes the debate stage. But the recoiling of some New Hampshire voters suggests there are limits to the strategy-- Michael Bloomberg beware. Indeed, some residents feel like they can't touch a piece of technology without seeing his face.

“There is a point of no return in terms of visibility," said Scott Spradling, a New Hampshire media analyst. "At some point, you become the uninvited guest. He uniquely is becoming dangerously close."

Steyer has spent $55.6 million in advertising nationally so far this election, with a heavy focus on digital, according to Advertising Analytics. In New Hampshire, he has purchased several multitudes more Facebook advertising than the campaigns of Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders combined. His Facebook ads over the last three months represented more than a third of all political spending-- from both parties-- on the platform, according to a review of Facebook’s database.

At the national level, Steyer has spent $6.5 million on Facebook in the last three months, $2.8 million more than the next biggest spender, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He also outspent Warren by $4.2 million; Sanders by $4.7 million; and Biden by $5.7 million, according to tracking provided by the social media platform.

He outspent President Donald Trump’s reelection effort by $700,000 in the same period.

Steyer has also spent millions on Google advertising, especially YouTube video ads. His campaign declined to discuss their strategy beyond stating he is committed “to communicating with voters about the importance of this election across a multitude of digital platforms.”

Without much of a national profile before the election, Steyer has tried to target the four early-nominating states in an effort to introduce himself to voters. In one way, it has worked just enough to get him a podium on nationally-televised debates. But on the ground, the ads don’t appear to be moving the needle much with voters. Steyer has steadily polled at about 2 percent in New Hampshire since the summer.

In contrast, Bloomberg is using his estimated ad buy to blanket the country. The former three-term New York mayor’s first ad focuses on his leadership after 9/11. He has ad buys scheduled in the lower 48 states, including one that will air in the media market of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

Joe Trippi, a veteran Democratic strategist who has worked on several high profile presidential campaigns, said of Steyer: “Spending this kind of money in the early states and being still in the single digits, that tells you he is having trouble connecting. You could spend $100 million like that and it may not work.”

Steyer was asked directly in a recent radio interview whether he’s passed the point of saturation to annoyance.

“I hear a lot of complaints about your social media ads blocking their YouTube videos,” the host told the candidate, referring to her teenagers. “You apparently got the high-end ones that you have to watch.”

“If people actually hear my message, they do respond,” Steyer replied. “I’m ... someone who people don’t know anything about and trying to make a very specific point and introduce myself.”

The two billionaires, one-- Bloomberg-- a moderate Republican pretending to be a Democrat and the other-- Steyer-- a moderate Democrat, are competing to spend the most personal money. The view from the right is that Elizabeth and Bernie are the ones trying to buy the election because they are offering to help the working class with their popular policies. Listen to the GOP slob in the red vest on CNBC's right-wing propaganda show, Squawk Box:

Bloomberg And The Parasitic Billionaire Class vs Bernie And Elizabeth

Yesterday, Bernie's campaign manager Faiz Shakir, sent out an e-mail about the troublesome billionaires afflicting the Democratic Party. "First," he wrote, "we had to face off against candidates flying around the country begging rich people for money at high-dollar fundraisers. Even so, we’ve out-raised them all… at just $19 a contribution. Then, Joe Biden’s super PAC says they have raised a ton of money in unlimited contributions from wealthy folks and will start running ads in Iowa imminently. Now, Mike Bloomberg and his billions are filing paperwork to run for president, mostly because he doesn’t want us or our issues to succeed. The truth is, big money will concede nothing to us. Nothing. They will fight us and our ideas to the end."

Yesterday, Newsweek's Jason Lemon asked if a billionaire, namely Michael Bloomberg, can buy an election. After all, he his net worth is in the $50 billion range.

Bloomberg historically has shown a willingness to spend tens of millions of his own money to win an election. During his successful 2009 mayoral reelection campaign, the billionaire spent about $102 million of his own money-- or about $174 per vote. In his 2005 reelection campaign, he spent about $85 million of his money, roughly $102 per vote. Four years prior during his first campaign in 2001, he spent $74 million of his money, coming in at about $99 per vote cast in his favor.

Notably, Bloomberg spent more of his own money on each of those successful campaigns than Trump, who is estimated to be worth only about $3 billion, did on his 2016 presidential run.

Richard Eskow had already asked the question the day before at Common Dreams. Eskow looks how the same math that Bloomberg used to buy the mayoralty in New York can be applied nationally. "If so," he wrote, "it would cost him $12 billion to buy the Oval Office. That is, of course, a disturbing and absurd notion to anyone with even a vestigial attachment to democratic principle. Here’s something even more disturbing: Bloomberg can easily afford it. Bloomberg has become a living illustration of runaway inequality and an irretrievably corrupted democracy."

Bloomberg was a Democrat, became a Republican, and is now a Democrat again. Party affiliation is, however, a trivial thing in his world. The ultra-wealthy change party affiliations and contributions on a whim, or for expedience, much as a gentleman might wear a tan linen suit in the summer and switch to darker wool blends as the autumn chill sets in.

Let’s do the math. As the New York Times reported in 2009, Bloomberg spent $74 million to win the mayoralty in 2001. He spent $85 million to win re-election in 2005. He then managed to void the two-term limit for New York City mayors and went on to spend $102 million winning his third term.

As The Times notes, that means Bloomberg spent $185 for every vote he received. Additional calculations by this writer show that he spent a total of $88 for every vote cast in his races for any candidate.

How much would it cost Bloomberg to become president, if we assume that every vote in the country “costs” as much as a New Yorker’s? 136,700,000 people voted in the 2016 election. If turnout is unchanged, and if the election could be purchased for $88 per vote, the cost of buying the United States presidency would come to $12 billion.

The total cost of the last presidential election was estimated at $2.6 billion. Bloomberg could spend five times as much as all the presidential campaigns spent together last time around, and he’d still be one of the richest people in the world.

Not that it would be easy. Despite his wealth, Bloomberg retains his deeply dislikable public persona. I have never seen him in person, but I have observed him as most voters would, through the media lens. Even the highest-paid consultants-- the one who told the officious Bloomberg to call himself “Mike,” even though he is never addressed that way-- have not figured out how to alter his self-presentation as a scowling, self-righteous martinet.

If beating Trump is your top priority, Bloomberg’s not your guy, even in our broken simulacrum of democracy. His nomination would almost certainly depress turnout among core Democratic voters. Some say he would win some votes among “persuadable” Republicans, but Republicans have proven far more attached to Trump than insiders and pundits expected. And if impeachment results in a different GOP candidate for 2020-- not likely, but not impossible-- the entire rationale for a Bloomberg candidacy disappears.

Still, if anybody can buy this election with personal funds, “Mike” can. He is one of the richest people in the world. According to Forbes, a source that is hardly hostile to the wealthy, Bloomberg currently has a net worth of $52.3 billion. (The use of the word “worth” in this context is, of course, is meant in a fiscal context, not a human one.)

Bloomberg may have certain restrictions on his investments and assets, but borrowing against them would be easy. He would be worth $40 billion after the election-- enough to buy several more races.

What would a Bloomberg presidency look like? True, he’s good on guns, but his imperious presentation of policy is likely to win few converts in Congresss. His environmental rhetoric is good, but he’s unwilling to make the sweeping changes needed to address climate change. His views on the economy are the retrograde ravings of an isolated oligarch. Inequality soared in Bloomberg’s New York City, which quickly became unaffordable for working people and extremely lucrative for others.

When Bloomberg spoke to an assembly of fellow executives in 2018, he reportedly said that we need to “go back to how things were done in Clinton days, when he'd get three Democrats, three Republicans and take them golfing, then go lock themselves in a room, close the door, smoke cigars and make all the decisions.”

Clinton’s deal-making elitism led to the financial crisis of 2008. Obama’s similarly “centrist” policies cost the Democrats the House, the Senate, the presidency, and 1,000 state seats. If that’s the outcome you want, Bloomberg’s your guy.

...Bloomberg’s wealth would have been unimaginable to the wealthiest and most powerful emperors of old. He didn’t “earn” it. His $52 billion is the product of a long chain of policy decisions-- in areas that range from taxation to the use of publicly-funded technologies and networks by private enterprise. His extreme wealth, and its ability to undermine democracy, reflects a long chain of policy failures. It is we who pay the price: in loss of democracy, in loss of economic rights, and in a future that may well be for sale to the likes of Michael Bloomberg.

Last week Mehdi Hasan interviewed Bernie for The Intercept You should read the whole thing. Hasan began the interview by asking Bernie why he is doing so well in the polls. Bernie responded: "For two reasons. Number one, we are taking on the entire establishment and it is no secret that I am not much loved by the corporate establishment or the corporate media. That’s one factor. We are a threat to them. And they are nervous that we are going to put together the kind of grassroots working class movement that we need not only to defeat Trump to transform the country. And I’ll tell you what the second reason is, you know, a lot of the media folks who are you know, they are hardworking. They’re nice. They’re honest people. They are not, 'enemies of the people' as Trump defines them, but they live in a certain world, an upper middle class world where they talk to each other. They don’t know many working class people who are supporting Bernie Sanders. They don’t know many young people who are supporting Bernie Sanders. And they talk to each other and they say, I can’t believe it. How does Sanders-- We have not talked to anybody who supports Sanders. How come he’s doing so well in the polls? I think those are the two factors that we have."

Hasan: One of the issues that moderators have obsessed over in those debates is how are you and Senator Elizabeth Warren going to pay for Medicare for All. Unlike you, she’s unveiled a very detailed, lengthy, specific plan for how she wants to pay for it. She says she’ll target employers as part of it. You told ABC News last weekend that her proposal isn’t as progressive as you’d like it to be, and would even hurt jobs by hurting businesses. A lot of Warren supporters have said that your argument Senator is the kind of argument that Republicans have used for years to say any tax on employers will cost jobs. How do you respond to them?

Bernie: Well, let me respond in several ways. First of all, right now, we are spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as do the people of any other country while 87 million are uninsured and some 500,000 people go bankrupt every year because of medical bills that they can’t pay. Number two, I appreciate very much that Senator Warren is a strong supporter of Medicare for All and is supporting the legislation that I introduced which is the only way that we’re going to provide quality healthcare to all people in a cost effective way.

So, there are differences in terms of how you fund it. Now, for the last several years, we have put out options. You say, you could do this, you could do that. One of the aspects of our plan is a 4% income tax exempting the first $29,000 of income. So, if you are the typical American family and making 60,000, you would pay a 4% income tax on 31,000, which is about 1,200 dollars a year which by the way, is much, much, much lower than that what that family is paying right now. We also have put a payroll tax on employers, and I think the number is 7.5%, or maybe 10%.

Hasan: But what about the specific criticism of you from the Warren team that you sound like a Republican saying that a tax on employers will hurt jobs?

Bernie: No, no, what I’m saying is... you tell me. The two concerns here, when you have a payroll tax, it will impact more significantly upper income companies where lawyers are making $100,000 or a million dollars a year, when you’re putting what amounts to a $9,500 head tax on a company that is hiring workers, for 40 or $50,000. That’s quite a hit. That’s quite a hit. So my point is, look, I was asked this question by ABC, and that’s the answer I gave and I think it’s the right answer. Senator Warren is trying to figure out a way to fund this. I am trying to figure out a way to fund it. Most importantly, what we both understand that Medicare for All will save the average American substantial sums of money in their healthcare costs.

...Hasan: And for those of us who are on the left and are not fans of Joe Biden, is there a danger, a lot of us worry that there’s a danger that you and Elizabeth Warren, both being in the race and doing so well splits the progressive vote, splits the left and helps a Joe Biden or even a Pete Buttigieg come through the middle and win the nomination. Isn’t that a real danger?

Bernie: I don’t think so. I mean, you have a process which as crazy as it may seem, actually make some sense and that is the primary process. And what it is, is the goal here, obviously, is to defeat, and defeat badly, Donald Trump the most dangerous president in modern American history. And ultimately, you know, you can argue about who the best candidate is, and I can argue about it, but you know, it’s going to be the people who make that decision. So Senator Warren and I are going out. She’s making our case. I am making my case for a variety of reasons. I do believe I am the strongest candidate to defeat Trump. The people will decide. She’ll get delegates. I will get delegates and we’ll see what happens as this process goes down the line.

Hasan: But you’re competing for similar delegates is my point. You’re not competing necessarily for exactly the same people as Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg.

Bernie: Right, that’s right but I think we’re also competing for some different constituencies as well.

Hasan: Okay. And in the past, you’ve suggested that and I’m quoting you from Twitter that the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is “anybody but Bernie.” You’ve said that you’re the real threat to the billionaire class. I just want to check then, are you saying that Elizabeth Warren is not a threat to the billionaire class...

Bernie: Don’t try-- don’t try to-- no. Elizabeth Warren is a friend of mine. And what we’re trying to do it...

Hasan: But is she a threat to the billionaire class.

Bernie: ...One second, one second, one second. What I said is that quote, paraphrasing, the corporate wing led by a group called Third Way said that Bernie Sanders is "an existential threat to the Democratic Party." And I agree with him. We are moving this party in a very significant way away from their dependency on corporate money on billionaire money to the needs and the support of working people in this country. I am very proud, by the way, Mehdi, that we have received more individual contributions from more people than any candidate in the history of American politics at this point in a presidential...

Hasan: I understand that and that’s a major achievement. I’m just wondering if I were to ask you, which candidates in the race should billionaires be afraid of? Clearly you would say yourself, and I think everyone would agree with that.

Bernie: Yes.

Hasan: Clearly, we wouldn’t say Joe Biden.

Bernie: Yes.

Hasan: I’m just wondering is Elizabeth Warren someone you would say that billionaires should be afraid of.

Bernie: Yeah, I think they should be as well. But I think, given my record and what we are trying to do in this campaign, is we are trying to uniquely in an unprecedented way in modern American history-- It’s not just win this election which obviously we’re trying to do. We are simultaneously trying to build an unprecedented grassroots movement of millions of working people, black and white and Latino, Native American and Asian American around an agenda that works for all of us and not just the 1%. So, we are building a movement because at the end of the day you know, we can’t bring about real change without that movement.

Hasan: And you said, Elizabeth Warren is a friend of yours. You say you have a similar approach on Medicare for All, would a presidential candidate Bernie Sanders be open to Elizabeth Warren as his running mate?

Bernie: Elizabeth Warren is somebody that I have worked with for many, many years. Worked with her before she was a United States senator. So obviously, if I am fortunate enough to become the Democratic nominee and president of the United States, I would look absolutely, to Elizabeth Warren as somebody who would play a very, very important role in everything that we’re doing.

Hasan: And other candidates have talked about the need to balance a ticket. You know, we live in this age of “identity politics,” especially with Trump’s racism, Trump’s misogyny that the Democrats should take a stand. Are you okay with an all-male or an all-white ticket in 2020 for the Democrats?

Bernie: It’s too early to talk about it, but I do believe let me just repeat what I’ve said many times is my administration and my cabinet will look like America. It will be the most diverse administration and the most diverse cabinet this country has ever seen. We are proud of our diversity. I am the son, proud son of an immigrant. And I think when people look at our cabinet and our administration, they will say, “Hey, that’s what America looks like.”

Hasan: I’m sure they will. I have absolute faith that your administration and cabinet will but I asked about the ticket. And the reason I asked about the ticket is Cornel West, who came on the show in March and endorsed your presidential bid in that interview. He said to me, and I quote: "When Bernie Sanders wins the presidency, you can rest assured it’s not going to be with another vanilla brother." Is he right about that?

Bernie: Well, Cornel is... I love Cornel. He’s doing a great job. He’s a longtime friend of mine, but we will make a decision about the vice presidency at the appropriate time. It’s a little bit early to do that now... [T]rust me that my vice presidential candidate will be a strong progressive.

Tom Steyer Should End His Candidacy Immediately-- And Bloomberg Shouldn't Run At All

There are always exceptions to blanket statements in politics, but, at least, to my mind, that billionaires should not be supported in presidential runs is not one of them. Steyer may be a better candidate, issue-wise than, say, the far more conservative and venal Michael Bloomberg, but he's still a billionaire who thinks he's entitled to buy whatever his money can buy. AP reporter Alexandra Jaffe exposed the latest ugliness. Steyer is attempting to blame it on an aide but it's likely to lead to the end of his candidacy... and just as Bloomberg is trying out his new presidential candidate outfits.

With apologies to David Bowie (RIP)

A little background: Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, has written himself a series of checks to the tune of $47,597,697, 95.87% of the $49,633,653 his campaign has collected. He's spent more than any other candidate so far, including Trump. But it hasn't done him that much good. His RealClearPolitics polling average is 0.9%, tucked between Tulsi (1.6%) and Michael Bennet (0.5%). The most recent poll-- from YouGov for The Economist shows him with a 34% favorable rating among Democrats but also shows that a plurality of Democrats (47%) and a majority of registered voters (53%) either don't know who he is or don't know enough about him to have an opinion. He's the first choice of 1% of Democratic primary voters and also the second choice of 1% of Democratic primary voters.

After spending tens of millions of dollars in ads in Iowa and New Hampshire, he fares better in those two states, a polling average of 2.8% in Iowa and 2.7% in New Hampshire. But the new scandal-- offering public officials bribes to endorse him-- should kill whatever momentum his advertising budget has bought him. Jaffe wrote that Pat Murphy, a former state House speaker who is Steyer’s top advisor in Iowa has been offering campaign contributions to local politicians in exchange for endorsements. Although the bribery isn't technically illegal, "payments for endorsements would violate campaign finance laws if not disclosed. There’s no evidence that any Iowans accepted the offer or received contributions from Steyer’s campaign as compensation for their backing." So far the only crooks who have taken up Steyer's offer are former Iowa state Rep Roger Thomas and former South Carolina state Rep. Harold Mitchell. Neither ex-legislator could probably persuade anyone outside of their immediate families to vote for Steyer.

But the proposals could revive criticism that the billionaire Steyer is trying to buy his way into the White House. Several state lawmakers and political candidates said they were surprised Steyer’s campaign would think he could buy their support.

Tom Courtney, a former Democratic state senator from southeastern Iowa who’s running for reelection to his old seat, told The Associated Press the financial offer “left a bad taste in my mouth.”

Murphy didn’t respond to a request for comment. Alberto Lammers, Steyer’s campaign press secretary, said Murphy was not authorized to make the offers and that the campaign leadership outside of Iowa was unaware that he was doing so until the issue was raised by The Associated Press.

Courtney declined to name Murphy as the Steyer aide who made the offer, but several other local politicians said they received similar propositions, and all confirmed the proposal came from Murphy himself. Most requested anonymity to speak freely about the issue. Another, Iowa state Rep. Karin Derry, said Murphy didn’t explicitly offer a specific dollar amount, but made it clear Derry would receive financial support if she backed Steyer.

“It was presented more as, he has provided financial support to other downballot candidates who’ve endorsed him, and could do the same for you,” she said.

Courtney described a similar interaction with Steyer’s campaign.

“Tom, I know you’re running for Senate. I’m working for Tom Steyer,” Courtney recalled hearing from the aide. “Now you know how this works. ...He said, ‘you help them, and they’ll help you.’”

“I said, ‘it wouldn’t matter if you’re talking monetary, there’s no amount,’” Courtney continued. “I don’t do that kind of thing.”

Lammers, Steyer’s campaign press secretary, said the candidate hasn’t made any individual contributions to local officials in Iowa and won’t be making any this year. In an email, Lammers said Steyer’s endorsements “are earned because of Tom’s campaign message,” and distanced the candidate from Murphy.

“Our campaign policy is clear that we will not engage in this kind of activity, and anyone who does is not speaking for the campaign or does not know our policy,” Lammers said.

The overtures do not appear to have made much of a difference for Steyer. Aside from Murphy’s support, Steyer has received the endorsement of just one Iowan since entering the race in July-- former state Rep. Roger Thomas.

Thomas did not respond to phone calls, but in a statement provided by the campaign, he said that he endorsed Steyer “because he’s the outsider who can deliver for Iowans on the issues that matter most: getting corporate corruption out of our politics and putting forth a rural agenda that revitalizes communities across Iowa.”

Thomas’ endorsement was issued in October after the close of the most recent campaign finance reporting period, which ended Sept. 30. The disclosure Steyer filed offers no indication that he directly gave Thomas any money.

Experts say a campaign could violate campaign finance laws if they don’t disclose payments for endorsements.

“It’s legal if you disclose a payment for an endorsement on your campaign finance report,” said Adav Noti, a former Federal Election Commission attorney who now works for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington. But, he added, “It would be unlawful if you don’t disclose it, or you disclose it but try to hide who the recipient is, or try to hide what that purpose was.”

A trio of former Ron Paul aides faced legal trouble in 2016 over similar issues during the 2012 Iowa Republican caucus campaign. Campaign chairman Jesse Benton, campaign manager John Tate and deputy campaign manager Dimitri Kesari were convicted in 2016 of charges related to arranging and concealing payments for then-Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, who switched his support from then-Rep. Michele Bachmann to Paul just six days before the Iowa caucuses. Sorenson served 15 months in jail for his role in the scheme.

It’s unclear whether Murphy could face a similar legal complaint, but the issue could revive scrutiny of how Steyer is deploying his financial resources. The billionaire businessman built his fortune in banking and investment management before turning to politics, and though he’s never held public office he invested tens of millions of dollars in political activism and electoral politics before launching his presidential bid this year. Prior to his presidential run, Steyer’s most recent focus was a multi-million-dollar, pro-impeachment campaign, and as the U.S. House takes up the issue, he’s argued he’s put it on the national agenda.

Steyer has largely self-funded his presidential campaign, spending $47.6 million of his own money in the first three months since launching his bid, much of that on online fundraising and advertising. Steyer has qualified for the November debate, but he remains at the back of the pack in early-state and national polls.

And then there's the even worse billionaire than Steyer-- far worse-- who's jumping into the race with the express purpose of smearing Elizabeth and Bernie and their/our progressive agenda. Let's remember, whether it's a relatively benign billionaire like Steyer or a full-on plutocratic villain like Bloomberg or Trump, a billionaire is a billionaire and any and all of them are absolutely terrible for democracy. They do not mean you and I or our families or way of life anything but ill. They must, must, must be stopped at all costs. Wasn't Trump enough as a lesson?

Are All Billionaires, By Their Nature, The Enemies Of Society? The Enemies Of The Working Class?

Billionaires freaked when there was talk about eliminating them. But no one was talking about guillotines or firing squads-- just more equitable tax plans. That's what Bernie proposed, what AOC proposed and what Elizabeth Warren proposed. And the billionaires and their lackeys went bonkers.

A littler history. The top marginal tax rates on multimillionaires-- there were no billionaires back then-- was 25% in the Roaring Twenties, a purely Republican economy that led directly to the Great Depression. FDR and the Democratic-controlled Congress raised the top rate to 63% in 1932 and then 79% in 1936. In 1941-- as World War II raged-- the top rate went up to 81%, 88% the following year and a much fairer 94% in 1944. After 1946, the very wealthy and their conservative allies in both parties worked to bring the rate down, first back to 91% and in 1964 to 77% and then 70% in 1965 both cuts under conservative Democrat Lyndon Johnson with congresses largely controlled by a coalition of conservative (mostly Southern) Democrats and Republicans. That was already way too low but in 1982, another conservative Democrat, Jimmy Carter lowered the top rate to 50%. After Reagan was completely senile and with virtually no participation the government, Republicans around him lowered the rate to 38.5 and then 28. It went up and down within a very low tight range between 28 and 39 .6 ever since. Currently the top marginal rate on regular income is 37%, although the system is so riven with loop-holes that few billionaires pay anywhere near that amount.

Jamie Dimon went after Elizabeth Warren this week, claiming she "vilifies successful people," presumably defining "successful people" as the ones who have accumulated the most wealth. AOC's proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate to a measly 70%-- instead of to the 90% level where it belongs-- is wildly popular among non-billionaires. Last February a Morning Consult poll for Politico, in line with similar polls, found that just 9% of registered votes think upper income people pay too much in taxes while 63% say they pay too little. Among Democrats 78% said the rich don't pay enough as do 61% of independents and 46% of Republicans.

They were also asked if they think the tax system favors the wealthy. 73% of registered votes said yes and only 14% disagreed. 87% of Democrats, 74% of independents and 55% of Republicans agree that the tax system favors the wealthy. 77% agreed that the system has too many loop-holes (including 82% of Democrats, 78% of independents and 71% of Republicans).

When asked if the wealthy should pay higher taxes 54% of registered voters agreed strongly and 22% somewhat agreed; that's 76%. Among Democrats 74% agreed strongly and 17% agreed somewhat, which makes 91%. Among Independents 52% agreed strongly and 22% agreed somewhat (74%). And among Republicans 32% agreed strongly and 30% agreed somewhat (62%).

They tested version of the wealth tax plans advocated by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie with this question: "Do you favor or oppose a recent proposal to levy a new, 2 percent annual tax on all assets owned by households with a net worth of $50 million or more, and an additional 1 percent tax on households with a net worth of more than $1 billion?" Among all registered voters, 39% agreed strongly and 22% agreed somewhat (61%). Among Democrats, it's 53% strongly and 21% somewhat, a total of 74%. Even among Republicans the overall number is 50% in favor and just 30% opposed.

Another related question was "Do you favor or oppose a recent proposal to increase the marginal tax rate on income over $10 million a year to 70 percent?" And once again, among all registered voters 27% strongly favored and 18% somewhat favored 45%, which went up to 38% strongly and 22% somewhat among Democrats, a total of 60%.

The best of the plans is Bernie's, which would put a 1% tax on the top 0.1% of households-- so a 1% tax on net worth above $32 million for a married couple, which means a married couple with $32.5 million would pay a wealth tax of just $5,000. It would rise to 2% on households with a net worth between $50 million and $250 million, 3% on net worth up to $500 million, 4% on net worth up to $1 billion, and up to an 8% tax on wealth over $10 billion.

That said, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, of late claiming to be a Democrat, is filing to run for president, at least in Alabama.

Despite preparing to file the necessary paperwork in Alabama, Bloomberg has yet to make a final decision on a run, the spokesman added.

Bloomberg's possible entrance comes as former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign struggles to break out of the Democratic field and as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a liberal lawmaker who has railed against billionaires like Bloomberg, rises in the Democratic primary campaign. A possible Bloomberg bid would be sure to dramatically shake up the Democratic primary process.

The reason Bloomberg is filing in Alabama is strictly because of the state's early filing deadline. Despite it not being an early nominating state-- Alabamans will pick their Democratic nominee on March 3-- the state has a filing deadline on Friday.

Bloomberg has privately expressed concerns about the strength of the 2020 field, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

The billionaire's decision to lay the groundwork for a run comes as Warren rises in the polls.

"He certainly disagrees with a lot of what she's put out there," said the person. "But he thinks she's smart and has put a lot of thought into her policies."

Bloomberg publicly entertained a 2020 bid earlier this year, traveling the country to meet with voters and determine whether a run was possible. He told reporters during this public speculation that he was seriously considering a bid, to the point that he had decided he would self-fund a campaign.

"In terms of running for office, I ran three times. I used only my own money, so I didn't have to ask anybody what they wanted in return for a contribution," he told CNN in January. "The public liked that every time they elected me. And, if I ran again, I would do the same thing."

But Bloomberg decided in March that he would not run for president, even though he had been leaning toward it for months.

"As I've thought about a possible presidential campaign, the choice before me has become clear. Should I devote the next two years to talking about my ideas and record, knowing that I might never win the Democratic nomination? Or should I spend the next two years doubling down on the work that I am already leading and funding, and that I know can produce real and beneficial results for the country, right now," he wrote in an opinion piece. "I've come to realize that I'm less interested in talking than doing."

He added: "And I have concluded that, for now, the best way for me to help our country is by rolling up my sleeves and continuing to get work done."

Bloomberg, however, has begun to rethink that decision, in part, because he does not believe any of the current candidates are positioned to defeat Trump.

That is an unflattering indictment of the Democratic field by the former New York mayor, who found earlier this year that there would be a narrow path to victory with Biden in the race. Since then, however, Biden's campaign has failed to take off, struggling to both capture the Democratic base and to raise money, and Bloomberg's possible entry will represent a direct threat to the former vice president.

Howard Wolfson, Bloomberg's spokesman, said Bloomberg wants to "finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated."

"But Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that," Wolfson said. "If Mike runs he would offer a new choice to Democrats built on a unique record running America's biggest city, building a business from scratch and taking on some of America's toughest challenges as a high-impact philanthropist."

Wolfson added: "Based on his record of accomplishment, leadership and his ability to bring people together to drive change, Mike would be able to take the fight to Trump and win."

Bloomberg's possible run would be met with a series of serious questions from the Democratic base.

Rather than an asset, Bloomberg's wealth could be considered a knock against him. Candidates like Warren and others have decried self-funding campaigns and run hard against the impact that money has in politics.

When Bloomberg considered a run earlier this year, a number of Democratic operatives told CNN they believed that a Bloomberg campaign would be doomed by the mayor's positions on policing, ties to Wall Street and the fact that he had spent much of his time in politics as a Republican and independent.

But Bloomberg also would bring considerable strengths to a campaign, including his work on climate change and guns and the fact that he has spent millions on Democratic causes for years.

Generally speaking, Democrats who ran as Democrats and on Democratic values did well across the country on Tuesday. Democrats who are politically like Bloomberg and who ran as Republican-lite candidates-- notably Jim Hood in Mississippi's gubernatorial race and Bob Andrzejczak in New Jersey's one state Senate race-- failed to enthuse base votes, who didn't bother voting, ceding both elections to the Republicans. No doubt Bloomberg's strategy is to count on a brokered convention that he can buy. And, without a doubt, that would mean 4 more years of Trump.

A World Without Ice

by Thomas Neuburger

In a new book, The End of Ice: Bearing Witness and Finding Meaning in the Path of Climate Disruption, author Dahr Jamail writes about the coming world without any standing glacial ice anywhere on earth. He capsulizes his thoughts in this interview with Dharna Noor at the Real News Network:

DHARNA NOOR: These indicators of the climate crisis are often presented as just statistics— sometimes ones that have implications maybe for the ecosystems around ice melting, rarely ones that are wreaking havoc on all life on Earth. But in this book, in The End of Ice, you write, “The reporting in this book has turned out to be far more difficult to deal with than the years I spent reporting from war torn Iraq.” And later you even say that, “we’re setting ourselves up for our own extinction.”

Talk about the extent of the earth’s ice loss, and how seeing it up close impacted you, and what it means for life around the planet?

DAHR JAMAIL: ... In four years’ time, [the Antarctic has] lost 34 times the amount of ice as was lost in the Antarctic over the same period. And so, what this essentially means is an area of sea ice in the Antarctic, larger than the size of Mexico, vanished in a four-year time frame. It went from a record high to a record low of sea ice extent. This is how fast things are happening in front of our eyes, coupled with the loss of terrestrial ice like in the Himalaya and in the lower 48 United States.

We have other reports show that we could have no ice whatsoever, no glacial ice whatsoever, in the lower 48 by the year 2100.

A life with no glacial ice anywhere in the continental U.S. is almost unimaginable. Extrapolating that thought throughout the globe is beyond what most people can even begin to picture.

Yet the consequences are easy to detail. Jamail continues: 

DAHR JAMAIL: And so, if you think about the human impacts of this, right now as we speak, almost a quarter of a billion people around the world rely on glacial ice just for their drinking water alone. If we look at agricultural impacts, you mentioned the Himalaya, the loss of ice in the Himalaya, some studies showing we could see almost the entirety of glacial ice in the Himalaya gone by 2100.

Well, in the Hindu Kush region, that’s the source of seven major river systems in Asia. 1.5 billion people rely on that water for drinking and for agricultural purposes, so if all of that ice is gone by 2100, where do those 1.5 billion people go? Because you can’t live somewhere where there’s no water, and then what happens in those areas where they go?

So you start to think about the cascading effects, just the human impact. I’m not even talking about the ecological impact, which is equally devastating. But if you start looking at these cascading impacts, then you start to get an idea of really the severity of the crisis that we’re in.

The Hindu Kush is a mountain range and surrounding area that stretches from central Afghanistan into Pakistan and China. 1.5 billion people is 20% of earth's population. This is not the most politically stable region of the world. A water-and-agriculture crisis involving 20% of earth's population won't be small — or fixable.

Now consider the same problem with global cascading effects — war, famine, disease and drought; sea level rise, ocean warming and acidification; arid farm land and ruined national economies; disruption of the food chain at both top and bottom.

The first permanent glaciers began to appear just 35 million years ago, a small fraction of a fossil record that extends back 240 million years, long before the dinosaurs, to the start of the Cambrian period. Humans have never lived in a world without ice.

Can we survive if, by our own action — or rather, the action of the pathological few to whom we've ceded control — the world returns to an ice-free state? Yes; perhaps.

But how many humans will an ice-free world support? Probably not seven and a half billion. Perhaps not a tenth of that number. Even a tenth of that tenth may be ten times too optimistic.
 

The Worst Democraps Who Want To Be President-- Part III, Michael Bloomberg

The image Democratic primary voters are looking for?

So, we have this series about the worst Democrats who want to be president-- Part I was Tulsi Gabbard and Part II was Kirsten Gillibrand-- and people have been asking me why it's taking so long to include Michael Bloomberg, obviously the worst of all. Well... is he a Democrat? I remember him running as a Republican and then as an independent. Is he pretending to be a Democrat now. His net worth is something between $46.3 and $51 billion-- which everyone knows should be taxed, above the first million, at 90%-- so how can he be a Democrat?

Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, I noted in a different post, that Bloomberg was strutting around the Bohemian Grove over the summer telling one and all that he's running for president. Kate Albright-Hanna did a terrific essay about his upcoming play to buy the presidency and why Democrats need to stop him. His recent moves," she wrote, "warm the hearts of centrist pundits who believe his orderliness, love of data and great wealth are 'antidotes' to Trump." I was born and raised in New York. It’s my home town. I stopped going there because of what Bloomberg did to it. Did, like in ripping out its soul and making it a Disneyland for the super-rich. But, I know, I know... he deserves a prominent place in the series. But look at it from Wall Street's view; they love him. Does that make you feel like supporting him?

Over the weekend, Vanity Fair published a piece by William Cohan, "I'd Vote For Michael In A Heartbeat": Wall Street's Case For President Bloomberg. First, though, can we all agree he's probably not as bad as Trump?

Cohan noted that Bloomberg donated $100 million to support a host of Democratic candidates in the midterm elections, helping to pick up 40 seats in the House, and purchasing plenty of goodwill in the process." His money was mostly wasted on making corrupt consultants richer. The only congressional candidate who actually won because of him is Kendra Horn, who you-- admit it-- probably never heard of, and is, like Bloomberg himself, a politically pointless, centrist mush likely to do more harm than good.

Like many #NeverTrump Republicans, he's been a good anti-Trump speaker and, in fact, when he made a big show of switching his party registration last month, he said Democrats can "provide the checks and balances our nation so badly needs" but didn't say anything about-- nor give any indication he understood-- Democratic Party values.

A theme you will hearing a lot: "he is the anti-Donald Trump. He is philanthropic, where Trump is not. He is actually very, very rich-- with a net worth of more than $50 billion and counting-- whereas Trump mostly pretends to be. He has meaningful and relevant experience as the chief executive of a global company and an international city, while Trump was woefully unprepared to be president and seems always to be learning on the job, and poorly at that. Unlike Trump, who at 72, claims to be the healthiest person who has ever served as president, Bloomberg, four years older than Trump, may actually be among the healthiest. In any event, he has some serious longevity genes: his mother lived to be 102 years old."

Being the anti-Trump in nearly every way, shape and form [-- because as you know, Michael Bloomberg is really a blue collar black lesbian--] could prove extremely useful politically for Bloomberg should he decide to run in 2020. And there is little doubt that whoever the Democrats nominate to face Trump, the plan will be to draw as sharp a contrast with him as possible, hoping that by then a vast majority of Americans, as well as the Electoral College map, will have had quite enough of Trump and his presidency. The only unanswered question is whether the Democrats will nominate someone from its liberal progressive wing-- in the Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris*, Beto O’Rourke* mold-- or whether the nominee will be from the party’s centrist progressive wing, in the form of, say, Bloomberg or Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts who has been a Bain Capital partner for the past three years.

[moderates but don't tell Cohan who, apparently doesn't know anything about either]

No surprise, on Wall Street, Bloomberg has vast reservoirs of support. “Think he would be great for America, and therefore for Wall Street,” one senior banker e-mailed me the other day. “Can’t think of anybody else I’d rather see win frankly.” Added Christopher Whalen, the founder of Whalen Global Advisors, an investment banking firm, and an astute economic analyst, “Oh, I’d vote for Michael in a heartbeat because he’s competent. In most areas you and I care about, he would do a good job.”

But for both men, the question remains: can Bloomberg win? The senior banker thinks Bloomberg could win the popular vote, although he’s less sure about the Electoral College. “The number of voters who would want almost anybody (except Hillary) over Trump exceeds the number of core Trumpers,” he wrote. “Bloomberg vs. Trump: he gets all of the Democrats and a big slug of Republicans as well.”

[Really? All the Democrats? Maybe not the ones who don't want to vote for conservative multi-billionaires... but the rest.]

Still, what works for Wall Street [see photo] doesn’t necessarily resonate on Main Street. Whalen worries that Bloomberg doesn’t have the “public persona” to run for president-- he’s just not well enough known beyond the Hudson-- and may come off as “preachy,” on such topics as gun control, smoking, and the consumption of sugary drinks. Large swaths of the American electorate obviously don’t like to be told what they can and can’t do and what may or may not be bad for their health, despite the fact that Bloomberg is probably correct about the dangers of smoking and consuming too much sugar, to say nothing about the need for comprehensive gun control.

...The inside word on Wall Street is that Bloomberg will announce his candidacy in February. And that’s when the trouble for him will start, and not just from Trump, who many believe Bloomberg can face down in ways that his rivals for the Democratic nomination cannot. No, the problem for Bloomberg will come from the progressives to his left. “Oh God, please don’t run,” read one characteristic response in the New York Times comment section in September, after the paper ran a piece about the prospects of a Bloomberg presidential bid. “I respect him tremendously on gun violence prevention and on the environment. But this is a man who ran and governed as a Republican. He is not what Democratic progressives want or demand at this time. And let’s not overvalue the middle-- Democrats playing to the middle for too long is partly to blame for two branches of government now being in Republican hands. He will do nothing to inspire people who often don’t vote and help us get out the Democratic vote. Getting out the Democratic vote is what it’s all about.”

Howard Wolfson worked for Hillary's campaigns in 2000 and 2006. Before that he was Schumer's comms guy and worked for the DCCC before that. You can probably deduce some stuff about him from that. He's Bloomberg's chief political advisor now and last night he announced his 76 year old client is going to Des Moines, ostensibly to screen a film about climate change. Bernie's going to have to face some establishment centrist in the primary. I suspect he'd prefer Bloomberg; what progressive wouldn't? Is there a better foil before going on to Trumpanzee? Anyone know if African-Americans, who I hear are important in Democratic primaries, have forgiven Bloomberg for shooting them in the streets of New York while he was mayor?