Opinion: Bloomberg hopes to battle Trump in a billionaire general election
If the Mike Bloomberg presidential campaign feels like America has traveled back four years in an electoral time machine, it should. Because in many ways, Bloomberg is running on the playbook written by the man he hopes to beat in November: President Donald Trump.
The similarities between Bloomberg’s and Trump’s campaigns are as eerie as they are numerous. From the time and position they entered their races to the media coverage and attention they have received, the possibility of two billionaires squaring off for the Oval Office looms large over the Democratic primary. This possibility became more tangible as Joe Biden struggled in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, unable to break 10% of the New Hampshire vote.
To begin the comparison, the wealth and business skills of the two are worthy of note. Trump currently has a net worth, as calculated by Forbes, of $3.1 billion, and in 2016, when he entered the race, that figure was as high as $4.5 billion. Bloomberg significantly overshadows Trump in this category, with a current net worth of $62.8 billion, good enough to place him as the eighth richest person in America, according to Forbes.
This similarity shows itself in the way the two men have funded their campaigns. Fortune reported that Trump spent $66 million of his own money on his campaign, in both the primary and general election. In total, the Trump 2016 campaign spent $340 million. By comparison, Bloomberg has spent over $188 million as of Feb. 9, 2020, the entire amount of which came out of his own pocket, according to the Guardian.
In the last quarter of 2019, Bloomberg singlehandedly outspent all the other current presidential candidates combined, according to Axios.
Bloomberg has already outspent Trump’s personal contributions to his 2016 campaign by almost three times, despite being in the race for only four months, compared to Trump’s two-year election campaign.
When looking at the races the two men entered, the similarity becomes even clearer. Trump entered a field of 17 Republican contenders for the nomination, which at that point was the most candidates of any primary race. That number was overshadowed four years later — Bloomberg entered a primary that has featured 29 major candidates seeking the nomination.
When so many candidates enter the field, it can become hard to stand out or receive enough polling, but that also means when the vote is so spread apart, a lower total percentage can still be enough to win many of the states.
In the first poll Trump appeared in, an ABC poll in May 2015, he polled at 4%. By the time of the Iowa caucus in February 2016, the first voters to select a candidate, he had moved up to 35% according to NBC News, significantly above the next closest candidate, Marco Rubio at 17%.
Bloomberg has shown a similar rise. While polling at 3% when he entered the race, and not even showing up on the Iowa caucus or New Hampshire ballot, Bloomberg is now polling at an average of 15% nationally, the third most of any Democratic candidate and a significant rise for someone only in the race for four months.
The final similarity between the two is the ability for the two candidates to overcome a previous history of controversial statements. Trump received significant media attention for a history of perceived racist and sexist comments, culminating in the leaking of the Access Hollywood tapes, which he acknowledged and apologized for on national TV.
Bloomberg has a similar history of controversy as well. A leaked tape showed him speaking favorably of his decision to implement “stop and frisk” in New York City to combat crime when he was mayor. He also has apologized for that position because of the racial profiling often used with “stop and frisk” tactics.
While both candidates have been accused by their primary opponents of trying to “buy the election,” the prevalence of Democratic socialist candidates like Bernie Sanders in 2020 indicates that the Democrat Party may be less likely to support a billionaire than the Republicans were in 2016. On the debate stage, candidates like Tom Steyer have been criticized for being a millionaire, and Pete Buttigieg has been criticized for taking donations from the wealthy. Candidates like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar have insisted on only taking small-money donations from regular citizens, rather than fundraising with the rich.
Bloomberg will certainly hope that by self-funding and spending, he can rise in the polls and gain enough support in a fractured Democratic field to win the nomination. If the same strategy works for him as it did for Trump in 2016, the 2020 general election could be richest in American presidential election history.
Wylie is assistant sports editor. Follow him on Twitter.
I am a proud Texan who resides in the Greater Houston Metropolitan area. I have been an online student at Liberty University since 2019; I turn sixty in April. I have been closely monitoring the Politics of Virginia, and I am very concerned. It appears as if the voters want to turn the State into the Peoples Socialist Republic of Virginia. I am seriously contemplating leaving Liberty and finding a Christian Univerity in Texas. I am concerned that it is just a matter of time before the Socialists gain power, and when they do, they will be coming for Liberty University. Is there any severe push back by anyone in the State of Virginia?
The Democrat Party is divided primarily into two camps with two different economic visions of America. The Old Guard wing, the Progressives, is to advance a more progressive economic ideology. (Edwards, 2019). The Democratic Socialist’s wing of the Party, the Bernie Sanders wing. (Podhoretz, 2020). “The largest socialist political organization in the country, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), wants to turn the Democratic Party into the Socialist Party. They passed a resolution calling for the abolition of private property and the acceptance of public housing as “a human right.” They supported the centralization of our economy as set forth under the Green New Deal, which would initiate public ownership of all primary energy systems and resources, i.e., coal, oil, and natural gas. Their code name for the Green New Deal, by the way, is the Red Deal.” (Edwards, 2019). The Economic Policies of both wings of the Party are more giveaway programs and growing Government, taking from those that have, defined by Democrats, then giving to those that have not, as identified by Democrats. As America prepares for the upcoming 2020 Presidential election, the Democrat Party is attempting to find its identity. Will it continue to be the Party of the “Old Guard Progressives” or the new Turks, fighting for control of the Party, the “Democratic Socialists.”
The old guard are Fabian Socialists, the young Turks, are Marxist/Leninist’s Socialists. In his book, Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500, Dr. Glen Martin described Fabian Socialism’s implementation as “evolutionary, peaceful, gradual, democratic, through the ballot box, legislatively, not militarily.” (Martin, 2006, pg. 188). He describes the Marxists/Leninism belief as “the international Socialist order can only be brought into existence, dialectically, by using force, violence, and bloodshed…” (Martin, 1979, pg. 2006).
The Old Guard does not disagree with the economic policies of the Democrat Socialists; the disagreement is the implementation. The Old Guard, “took over the Democrat Party in 1932 (Martin, 2006, pg. 224). Slowly and methodically, they have infiltrated and taken over every facet of life with virtually little or no detection of resistance. The young Turks want the implementation of their policies immediately! If that were to take place, their truth is out, and presumably, most Americans would oppose them, and Socialism would suffer a setback. Below are differences between the Old Guard Progressive views of the economy in my home state of Texas and the Democrat Socialists view of the economy:
PROGRESSIVE: That the people who work in a business are as important as those who invest in it; that every worker should be paid a living wage of at least $15-an-hour.
That good business offers a fair deal for customers; that regulation of unfair practices and rates is necessary; that the burden of taxes should be fairly distributed.
That government policy should not favor corporations that seek offshore tax shelters, exploit workers, or pollute our environment; and all people, including those with disabilities. (J.R. Phillips, 2019).
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS: Medicare access for all. Federal job guarantee. Public banks- The goal would be to steer the 34 million “unbanked” and “underbanked” American households away from the for-profit payday lending system, in which workers — many of whom are black or Hispanic — routinely shoulder triple-digit fees to borrow money for bills that come due before their next paycheck because they do not live near a traditional commercial bank or cannot afford to maintain an account at one. They often descend into permanent debt as a result.
Corporate freeloader fee- Companies that pay a living wage and provide health benefits and retirement benefits and do not outsource their jobs — they should get a lower tax rate,
Child allowance, European-style labor laws, ‘democracy dollars,’ and more. (Edwards, 2019).
Government overreach is Standard Operating Procedure. The creation of various and differing bureaucratic agencies and departments at the taxpayer’s expense to grow the size of government is a goal of the Democrat Party. The result is a misuse and waste of resources. Listed below is just one example :
“One of the latest massive expansions came early in the Obama years when a Democratic Congress passed the Dodd-Frank banking law and gave birth to an entirely new agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB is the ultimate example of regulatory overreach, a nanny state mechanism asserting its control over every day Americans that they did not want did not ask for and did not need.” (Carson, 2015).
“And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him.” (Mark 12:17, NASB).
On paper, the Party’s economic plan appears equitable; but who is going to pay, and how much will it cost? Which side of the Party will ultimately win; we will have to wait and see. “The outlook is dark, but it is not entirely without hope. Here and there, one can detect a break in the clouds. More and more people are becoming aware that the Government has nothing to give people without first taking it away from somebody; or themselves”. (Hazlitt, 1979, pg. 211).
Edwards, L. (2019). The Democratic Socialists of America Aren’t Winning. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary
Podhoretz, N. Democrats, are happily backing Bernie Sanders, the most left-wing presidential candidate ever. (2020). Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://nypost.com/2020/02/22/
Martin, G. R. (2006). Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500. Marion, IN Triangle. DOI: 2/28/2020.
Phillips, J.R. Ellis County Democratic Party. (2019). Retrieved February 28, 2020, from http://elliscountydemocrats.org.
Romano, Andrew (2018). Newest-deal-Dems-build-progressive-platform-2020.
Retrieved February 28, 2020, https://www.yahoo.com/news/
Hazlitt, H. (1979). Economics in One Lesson. New York, NY: Random House. DOI: February 28, 2020.
Carson, B. S. (2015). The CFPB: The ultimate example of government overreach and bureaucratic bungling. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news.