US President Donald Trump is a billionaire, or claims to be. The last thing he is expecting from the 2020 presidential election is an opponent who is even richer.
However, one of the more unusual clusters in the putative Democratic field is the billionaire boys club: former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, hedge fund investor and activist Tom Steyer and former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz. Estimated combined wealth: US$50 billion.
If any or all decide to run, they will have a massive spending advantage over conventional politicians and be at liberty to carpet-bomb crucial primary states with advertising. However, their deep pockets are also likely to produce a visceral reaction from left-wing activists favoring warriors against economic inequality, such as US senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
“I don’t think Michael Bloomberg is going to win Democracy for America’s endorsement anytime soon given his connections to Wall Street,” said Neil Sroka, spokesman for the progressive group. “It’s going to be hard for any of the billionaires given concerns over the influence the wealthy have over our politics.”
A recent straw poll by another liberal advocacy group, MoveOn, was led by US Representative Beto O’Rourke at 15.6 percent, alongside Sanders and Warren in the top five. Bloomberg ranked eighth at 2.71 percent, while Steyer was in 23rd place at 0.28 percent and Schultz tied for 32nd and last place at 0.1 percent.
However, these are early days and corporate titans can buy name recognition. Schultz, 65, reportedly plans to travel the country early next year to promote a book entitled From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America. Bloomberg recently re-registered as a Democrat and Steyer spent heavily in the midterms to help Democrats regain the House of Representatives.
Earlier this month they were on the ground in the key states of Iowa and South Carolina. Both have political causes that could make them stand apart from a highly crowded field.
Bloomberg, 76, vowed to make climate change the defining issue of the Democratic primary campaign, despite potential resistance in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where Trump won in 2016 by promising to resurrect the coal industry.
Whereas climate change was not even mentioned in the debates between then-presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Trump in 2016, there is a growing clamor for it to be treated as a global emergency.
Steyer, 61, held a roundtable discussion in Charleston, South Carolina, focused on voting rights in the first southern primary state. Like Bloomberg, he has spent millions of US dollars promoting awareness of climate change.
However, he is best known for his dogged effort to bring about Trump’s impeachment in defiance of Democratic leaders who regard the strategy as too risky. Nearly 6.5 million people have signed up to his Need to Impeach Web site, handing him an e-mail list that could prove invaluable in an election campaign.
Steyer described Trump as “the most corrupt president in American history who is a basic threat to our system and our safety, and to the constitution itself,” The Associated Press reported.
He said many Democrats and Republicans “don’t think it’s good for their careers to talk about that.”
The events of recent days, in which prosecutors connected Trump to the federal crime of paying hush money to two women during an election campaign, and US Special Counsel Robert Mueller nailed fresh details of his team’s contacts with Russia, have fueled demands for impeachment and suggested that Steyer could find himself on the right side of history.
“The 2020 Democratic field is not unlike a game of Monopoly; it’s a question of what property do you own,” said Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution thinktank in Palo Alto, California.
“You have to look at this through the lens of Democratic primary voters: Steyer has beat the others to punch on impeachment,” he said.
“Schultz has been quietly reaching out to policy types. If it’s Goldilocks and the Three Bears, he is the coolest porridge, Steyer is the hottest and Bloomberg is the middle,” Whalen added.
But while the three are more than a match for Trump at business, they cannot claim to be reality TV stars.
“You have to ask yourself, while these guys are fabulously wealthy, are they interesting?” Whalen said. “None of them has the intrigue or scandal or celebrity that Trump has. Put Steyer and Schultz and Bloomberg in front of an audience in Iowa and tell me which one connects.”
“It has to be Steyer because of his message to hang them high. It’s not Bloomberg talking about what he did for infrastructure in New York. There’s a lot in Bloomberg’s record in New York that won’t please Democratic activists,” he said.
One example is Bloomberg’s policy of having police stop people on the street to search them for guns, an approach that largely affected men of color.
In 2013, a federal district judge ruled that stop-and-frisk had been carried out in an unconstitutional manner, but Bloomberg continues to insist that stop-and-frisk did not infringe civil rights.
He is socially liberal, but fiscally conservative, a free trader with views on banking regulation that are anathema to the left. Last week, he told ABC’s The View that he thinks most Democrats want a “middle-of-the-road” strategy with a pragmatist in the White House.
His support for immigration and gun control are not likely to be enough to win over the progressive wing.
“The momentum in the party is circling back towards Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, even folks who want to brand themselves as progressives like Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris. It would be hard for a guy like Michael ‘stop-and-frisk’ Bloomberg or Tom Steyer to come out and say: ‘I’m a progressive,’” said Dave Handy, a New York-based political consultant and organizer.
“If Bloomberg tries to present himself as on the left on healthcare with the soda ban [a failed attempt to limit sales of jumbo sugary drinks], that’s precisely the wrong type: It’s what conservatives like to call the nanny state,” Handy added.
Wealth is not necessarily disqualifying: Former Democratic presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy hailed from US aristocracy. However, amid deep skepticism about the corrosive effects of money in politics, and as more and more candidates say they will reject corporate donations from political action committees, the timing is unfortunate.
None of the billionaires has yet thrown his hat in the ring, but Bloomberg is actively considering it, while it emerged on Wednesday last week that Steyer is using an anonymous LinkedIn page to advertise vacant “state director” jobs in Nevada, South Carolina and New Hampshire.
Schultz is keeping a lower profile: He joined Twitter in September 2012, but is yet to tweet.
“They could be formidable, but they’d better not wait around,” said Bob Shrum, a Democratic strategist who was an adviser to the Al Gore and John Kerry presidential campaigns. “They have to start on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, and not assume buying ads will be enough.”
“Their money is a huge advantage, although Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke can raise huge amounts. Bloomberg can have a fundraising breakfast with himself,” he added.
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
Taiwan Retrocession Day is observed on Oct. 25 every year. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government removed it from the list of annual holidays immediately following the first successful transition of power in 2000, but the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-led opposition reinstated it this year. For ideological reasons, it has been something of a political football in the democratic era. This year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) designated yesterday as “Commemoration Day of Taiwan’s Restoration,” turning the event into a conceptual staging post for its “restoration” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The Mainland Affairs Council on Friday criticized
The topic of increased intergenerational conflict has been making headlines in the past few months, showcasing a problem that would only grow as Taiwan approaches “super-aged society” status. A striking example of that tension erupted on the Taipei MRT late last month, when an apparently able-bodied passenger kicked a 73-year-old woman across the width of the carriage. The septuagenarian had berated and hit the young commuter with her bag for sitting in a priority seat, despite regular seats being available. A video of the incident went viral online. Altercations over the yielding of MRT seats are not common, but they are
RSS