'We've never seen spending like this': Bloomberg, Steyer saturate airwaves

[brooklynite]

Politico

They entered the race late, but the two billionaires seeking the Democratic nomination are making up for lost time.

Together, Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg have poured nearly $200 million into television and digital advertising alone, with the former New York mayor spending an unprecedented $120 million in the roughly three weeks since he joined the presidential race. That’s more than double the combined ad spending of every single nonbillionaire in the Democratic field this year.

“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's 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.

[aeromanKC]

1. Great to see!!

Lots of air time for Dem policies!!

[msongs]

3. are the ads about policies or billionaire egos? nt

[Mr.Bill]

6. The Steyer ads I've seen

are about making term limits for Congress.

Which even if you agree with it (I don't) is a pipe dream. No way is Congress going to impose term limits on themselves.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. They'd need a constitutional amendment to do it. It won't happen.

Anyhow, term limits is a right-wing pipe dream often raised by the American Enterprise Institute.

[Cha]

16. That seems like a weird to me to be pushing at this

time in history.

[aeromanKC]

8. Both

But still refreshing to see high quality TV spots paid for by Dems rather than gag phlem inducing right wing faux family values or freedom caucus group ads.

[MerryBlooms]

2. I hope after they lose the nomination, they continue to pour money in to defeat trump.

[crazytown]

4. I think if Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination

it will be a cold day in hell before Bloomberg spends another cent on the campaign ... and I say that as a Warren supporter.

[MerryBlooms]

7. I'm not a Bloomberg fan, but I think he has an ounce or two of ethics that will...

keep him supporting Dems, no matter who our nominee is, plus, it's a good business decision. He might take a hit if either Warren or Sanders takes it, but, if he shows a good faith effort in supporting them, Dems will recognize it and support his businesses.

[Mopar151]

5. Either would be a plausible VP

Compared to several recent examples......

[hurl]

9. Sad

Quality candidates like Kamala Harris aren't able to buy their way in while these guys are taken seriously. What a screwed up system we have. I hope our party can figure out a way to clean it up.

[Rob WA]

11. Why the hypocrisy

There seem to be some that single out these two candidates a two men feeding their egos. Anyone running for the highest office in the land has an ego; they must.

They have unlimited funds they are willing to spend to win. Every candidate desires unlimited resources to win.

I have been reading DU for over a decade, although I only recently registered. I don't keep track of usernames on DU, but it is clear that there are some users that attack Steyer and Bloomberg for their candidacy and spending. Those same people wish that they would spend that kind of money on down-ballot races.

Steyer has funded a relentless campaign calling for Trump's impeachment. We all loved that. Then he dared seek the nomination and now he gets bitter criticism.

Bloomberg's spending to support Democratic candidates goes back well before his candidacy. His spending is unprecedented for an individual. He was praised for his seemingly unlimited funding to get Democrats elected. Then he announces his candidacy and the attacks begin.

Ideologically Sanders is my guy. My second choice is Bloomberg, because I don't have an iota of doubt that he will absolutely obliterate Trump. I want to win and, frankly, I think Bloomberg is a stronger general election candidate.

It really is time to put aside the argument that these guys are simply feeding egos. It is also time to stop attacking wealthy candidates, while criticizing them for not otherwise spending that money on other races we want to win.

[ret5hd]

12. Yeah, we need another businessman as Pres!

As long as the grift is on our side!

[Mr.Bill]

13. Trump is not a businessman.

Nor has he ever been one. He is a con man and a criminal.

[StevieM]

14. Bloomberg supported Bush/Cheney in 2004.

He will never be my guy.

[tirebiter]

15. I take them at their word

That they want Trump gone. Having more money than Trump does not make them as or more evil.