NEWSFEED WEDNESDAY: Democrats’ Choice: A Plutocrat or Avowed Socialist for President

J Robert Smith

  • Feb. 19, 2020
  • 3 min read

“What Mini Mike is doing is nothing less than a large scale illegal campaign contribution. He is ‘spreading’ money all over the place, only to have recipients of his cash payments, many former opponents, happily joining or supporting his campaign. Isn’t that called a payoff?” Trump tweeted Tuesday afternoon.

The Hill, February 18, 2020

Stop Bloomberg. He’s showing billionaires how to buy the presidency and it’s dangerous.

Jason Sattler, USA Today, Headline, February 18, 2020


As of today, the Democrats have a Faustian choice for their presidential nominee. Michael Bloomberg, a plutocrat, or Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, whose affections are for Marx and Lenin. Either candidate as the Democrats’ nominee spells doom for their party in November.

Democrats have entered the hot phase of a long simmering intraparty civil war. The battle lines are clear. It’s the “progressive” – and corrupted – Democratic establishment versus the – corrupted – and no-bones-about-it leftists. The fight is for control of the party, now and in the future. Generational change favors the out-and-out leftists. But the establishment won’t go easy into that good night.

The Democratic establishment is on Plan B. Joe Biden was Plan A, but Biden is a corruption-tainted incompetent and inveterate liar, whose act has worn thin – again. So, Democrat power players – save the addled Nancy Pelosi – have turned their desperate eyes to Bloomberg – after a brief flirtation with the sanctimonious Pete Buttigieg. But “Mayor Pete” may prove to be Plan C if Bloomberg’s billions can’t sufficiently grease the skids to gain the nomination.

The delicious irony is that a party that has long vilified the rich – most conspicuously starting with William Jennings Bryant in the late 1800s through Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and virtually every Democrat since – may wind up with a bored, mega-wealthy businessman as its party’s standard-bearer.

Democrats, indeed, have a history of hypocrisy. Andrew Jackson was wealthy in his day, but led a democratic revolution. Ditto FDR, though Roosevelt was something of a parlor pinko. Jack Kennedy, conservativish, was rich but good-looking and charming, so he got a pass. Socialism wasn’t around when Jackson was leading the charge. The others – even Roosevelt – would lay claim to being progressives or liberals, but made it clear they’d never go all-in on socialism.

For the personality-challenged Bloomberg, the presidency is another trophy for his mantle. He was once a Republican, then an independent, and now a Democrat. He’s throwing gobs of money at key left-wing causes, “climate change” being the jewel in the crown. He’s trying to buy quiet and cover.

The Democratic establishment is indefatigably scheming behind the scenes to thwart Bernie. Party powerbrokers know that a monumental elections debacle awaits up and down the ballot should Bernie play Quixote in the fall.

Democrats with longer memories recall the 1972 McGovern skunking and Reagan’s landslide victories in 1980 and 1984. But for Watergate, ’72 would have setback Democrats for years. Reagan accomplished the mission with his resounding victories in his elections.

Bloomberg will crash in a match up with President Trump – but he may not lose as badly, or so the establishment wagers. Democrats need to retain the U.S. House. They’d like at least an outside chance at winning the Senate. It’s about salvaging what they can.

Yet the establishment’s efforts may be in vain. Would the ascendant younger generation of left-wing Democrats vote for Bloomberg come November? Bernie has indicated he’d back the Democrat nominee, but will restless, power-hungry, young leftist bucks and buckettes follow his lead?

If the Vermont senator pulls off the nomination, would so-called moderate Democrats jump off an electoral cliff with him? How many disillusioned Democrat rank and filers would defect to Trump? Or would they stay home, vote for an independent, or just vote down-ballot contests?

Of course, neither old man may be the Democrats’ nominee. The future is chockful of X Factors that can veer events in surprising directions. Or not. As of now, though, Democrats are being given two bleak choices: Go all-in with an adventuring plutocrat, or throw in with a zany socialist who’s out-of-step with most Americans. Either way, Democrats lose.

What do you think? Weigh in!

Please share!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *