Democratic Party

Democrats Hate Wealthy Candidates…When They're Not Democrats

Who's ready for a class war from the party of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and the Kennedy/Roosevelt clans?

|

||| WBUR
WBUR

"Howard Schultz is a jackass," Philippe Reines, the longtime Democratic communications specialist and former Obama administration deputy assistant secretary of state, told Axios this week. "He's arrogant and wealthy—and those people tend to not see the world as it is."

Reines is nothing if not experienced with wealthy political candidates who have a reputation for arrogance. He worked early in his career for Jane Harman, one of the richest members of Congress. He's the co-founder of Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington defense/security consultancy that traffics in international murk and represented at least three 2016 presidential contenders. And Reines's longtime boss Hillary Clinton (who incidentally thought highly enough of Schultz to have tabbed him as a potential secretary of labor) was estimated to be worth $15 million when she ran for president in 2016, padded in part by charging the likes of Goldman Sachs $225,000 per speech. (Clinton's husband Bill was worth an additional $80 million, it was estimated at the time.)

Democratic revulsion at candidates' wealth, on splenetic display all week, has been nakedly situational in the 21st century. Four years after nominating John Kerry, one of the richest presidential candidates in U.S. history (estimated net worth $200 million, and that's not counting his much richer wife), Democrats spent their 2008 national convention lambasting John McCain's seven houses. "I suppose if you've got seven, maybe eight houses, the economy looks fundamentally sound to you," candidate Barack Obama said on the campaign trail. "But if you're having trouble making the mortgage payment…then the economy looks awful different."

As evidenced by the "For the 99.8% Act" unveiled today by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), as well as the "tippy-top" tax envisioned by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), soaking—and insulting—the rich is all the left-of-center rage this cycle. "Democrats should do the pragmatic thing in 2020," New York magazine's Eric Levitz advised this week, "and wage a vicious class war."

||| Reason
Reason

If so, snipers are going to first have to take out some of the party's own 2020 presidential candidates. The estimated worth of Michael Bloomberg, for example, is $47.6 billion, good for 14th place on the planet. Former Rep. John Delaney, whose 2020 bid touts campaign finance reform, was estimated as the sixth wealthiest member of the previous Congress, with a net worth of $92.6 million. Tech entrepreneur and robotophobe Andrew Yang, who likes to warn against the wealth gap, is firmly on the other side of it. Self-help guru and Oprah Winfrey spiritual adviser Marianne Williamson—what, you didn't realize she was running?—is so salt-of-the-earthy that she announced her candidacy this week at the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills. Join the evolution, indeed.

But the real challenge in any proper class war is figuring out where exactly to draw the battle lines. Sure, Bloomberg and his lesser-known fellow richies in the field will be among the first against the wall, but what about Beat poet Beto O'Rourke and his estimated net worth of $9 million? Elizabeth Warren may talk a good anti-1-percent game, but she ain't part of the 99. Yes, Bernie Sanders is on the lower end of the Senate's wealth scale, but does he really need all three of those homes?

Complicating any class-war plans is the fact that the 13 richest congressional districts in the country, and 41 of the top 50, are now represented by Democrats. The presidential voting preference among the top 4 percent flipped Democratic in 2012 for the first time in a half-century and hasn't looked back since. If there's a party of the rich, it's not the GOP.

So enjoy the wealth-bashing primary season while it lasts, Jacobin friends! Soon enough the party of John F. Kennedy (estimated net worth: $100 million) and Howard Schultz's very favorite Democrat of the past 50 years, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ($60 million), will get back to the business of attracting rich voters and donors and candidates by insisting that they're only going after people precisely as rich as Howard Schultz and Donald Trump.

NEXT: Bombshell Report About Americans Helping UAE Hack Phones Is a Warning Against Compromising Encryption

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The good news is the working class figured this out decades ago, and have been abandoning Democrats in droves.

    1. They still have the working class, it’s just been redefined to include people “barely scraping by” on low six figures in NYC

      1. The unions full of the working class in NYC are about to take on and beat Amazon.

        1. I assume you mean that literally. Will it be on ppv?

          1. Bezos’ robots would destroy even the vaunted Teamsters.

            1. Those robots will box their ears.

    2. Then the working class vote must not be that important since Democrats have still managed to win the popular vote in all but one Presidential election in my lifetime.

      1. You’re only 18? That explains a lot.

        1. No. I was born in 1995.

          The Democrats won the popular vote in 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, and 2016. (They’ll win it again in 2020.)

          1. But how long have you been paying taxes?

          2. “No. I was born in 1995.”
            That explains a lot.

          3. The Ds did NOT win the Popular vote in 1996. Well, they won a plurality, not a majority

      2. You do know that the popular vote is not meaningful in a presidential election, right?
        Like saying “sure, they won the super bowl by having the most points, but we had a longer time of possession”

        1. It is meaningful if you want to find meaning in it. Such as when answering the question: “Which of the two candidates did more American people actually want to be president?”

          I realize that the idea of letting that guy be the president is practically Carrollian in its whimsical frivolity.

          1. Your idiocy assumes people dont alter the hotel patterns in pure democratic elections. You’re fucking stupid enough to honestly believe this.

            1. Their voting patterns *

              1. Oh, so people in significant numbers would switch from Trump to Clinton or vice versa if there were no electoral college? Totally checks out.

                1. How about if we enforced voter ID and citizenship registration requirements in all jurisdictions.

                  The EC keeps corrupt big city, and now big state, machines from stealing elections by confining the damage to just a portion of the vote.

                  For example, the Ballot Harvesting crisis in the disputed NC congressional seat – Ballot Harvesting in perfectly legal and practiced widely in many Blue States

            2. I’m not sure what you’re saying but I assume the premise is that Donald Trump was a genius campaigner despite having no political experience and being surrounded by morons while being, himself, a moron. Sorry, doesn’t wash. It’s really no wonder he’s so nice to Putin.

          2. Sorry, Tony: you don’t get your own president.

          3. Tony|1.31.19 @ 5:51PM|#
            “It is meaningful if you want to find meaning in it.”

            So are UFO sightings.

          4. It’s not even meaningful when answering that question because candidates spend money and effort – and to a large extent, voters vote – with a firm prior understanding of the rules of the game. For all its failings, the electoral college is the current rule. Candidates adjust their behavior because of it. And so do voters. You cannot simply wish that away with hypotheticals about how people might have voted under a different rule.

            1. To clarify – “voters vote or stay home”

              (We really need an edit button.)

              1. Maybe we need to take the position that an edit button is a libertarian concept.

                Not having an edit button means that once something has been submitted to the masses, the masses own it, not the producer. Therefore, not changes can be allowed.
                Having an edit button means the producer retains control of his product, even while it generates revenue for the host.

                Think that will fly here?

    3. The reason Trump one for the most part is because the union base, which used to be firmly on the side of the Democrats, just got tired of the endless ridicule of the blue collar class and jumped ship. The Democrats still don’t seem to have noticed.

      1. Not public employee unions.

        1. Public employee unions are stupid. The purpose of unions was to protect the worker from business owners. Government is not a business. Unions make no sense for government employees.

          Union bosses may still be firmly on the side of Democrats, but the rank and file labor union members are abandoning the Democrats in droves. Only public employee unions and the SEIU (the minimum wage people) remain on their side.

        2. Only the actual workers jumped ship.

      2. Oh, they’ve notice. Schultz is an attempt to peel off those Democrat leaning Trump voters. Enough to keep him from again winning in the states that gave him the last election, while not taking too many away from the states that Hillary carried.

        Look at who is writing this article. It’s part of an obviously concerted campaign to present Schultz as something he plainly is not.

    4. Only if you use “working class” as a euphemism for racists, like what the media was doing in 2016 to talk about Trump’s base.

  2. Because Republican candidates are paragons of humbleness LMFAO. Why not mention both parties?

    1. Reason is Koch-funded propaganda, that’s why.

    2. No one said shit about humility. Hypocracy, though…

    3. I believe you call that “whataboutism”

      1. Aye. It’s illegal to point out the mote in Progressives eyes when the shoe is on the other hand

        1. Ehh, I meant beam. The Proggies have the beams and focus on Republican motes

          1. How about ‘rail’? As in ride out of town on – – – – –

    4. I don’t think the article is about paragons of humbleness.

      Both parties are not mentioned because the Republican’s are pretending to hate the rich to get votes.

      1. are not pretending…

    5. Every story must be about everything.

    6. Republicans don’t trash prosperity

      1. Well, most of them.

  3. I usually defend Democrats here, but I can’t argue with this. I wish they’d stop acting like extreme wealth is inherently immoral. Especially when so many of the wealthiest people in the country use their money to fund open borders advocacy. That proves rich people are, in fact, more humanitarian than the rest of us.

    1. I think that you’re being too generous. Reason is clearly becoming an alt-right pro-Trump propaganda organization with it’s bad mouthing of democrats legitimate concerns. Wealthy democrats do good, while wealthy republicans do evil.

      1. To AlmightyJB: Nothing like making broad generalizations to reveal one’s ideology, partisanship and ignorance of the facts.

      2. Yeah, fuck them for inventing things, and creating companies, and making stuff, and paying people–and all that other evil. Oh, and paying most of the taxes.

      3. You guys must be new here.

        1. “You guys must be new here.”

          That or with sarc meters suffering from the freezing temps.

    2. “That proves rich people are, in fact, more humanitarian than the rest of us.”

      So if I make 10 million dollars and donate 100k, am I more generous than someone that makes 100K and donates 1k?
      Answer they are the same percentage. Just because it’s a greater number doesn’t mean they are more humanitarian. I would actually the poorer person is because they need it more.

      1. Yeah, and who else held that position? A religious fundamentalist and terrorist named Jesus.

        1. OK, outside of one Robin Hood moment with the Temple money changers, please cite the act(s) of terrorism.

      2. Yep; fun fact.
        I donated a higher percentage of my income than “we must help people” Obama in every year he released his taxes. And in one exciting year I actually gave more in absolute dollars to churches than he did.
        But I am ‘a racist sexist anti-gay old white guy’, and he is a paragon of virtue because he picked his black half for political reasons.

        (full disclosure: I was employed then)

  4. Democrats Hate Wealthy Candidates…When They’re Not Democrats
    Who’s ready for a class war from the party of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and the Kennedy/Roosevelt clans?

    These rich white Democrats dont even see what’s coming. They’re next.

  5. >>>But the real challenge in any proper class war is

    walking the fuck away from class wars.

  6. Either way, do we really want as president someone who doesn’t need the salary?

    1. Senator McComb says “yes”.

    2. To Fist of Etiquette: Why not? The level of one’s need for money is not a defining characteristic of leadership.

    3. Better yet, how about a presidency with a ten year term of office, lots of ego-polishing perks in office, and then humane execution when the term is up.

      Now let’s see who wants to run.

      1. “Now let’s see who wants to run.”

        Those who are over 90 years old.

      2. After a ten year term, a packed supreme court declares that there is no such thing as ‘humane execution’, outlaws executions, and provides the incumbent with a pass to run for another ten years.

        Now let’s see who wants to vote.

  7. “Democrats should do the pragmatic thing in 2020,” New York magazine’s Eric Levitz advised this week, “and wage a vicious class war.”

    I read that article today. It was surprisingly data-driven. The argument was that lots of Americans have negative views of “the rich” and positive views of “the poor”, and playing to that is a winning electoral strategy. I may not like it, but it’s probably true and a wise course for Democrats to follow.

    1. True, but considering that the Democratic Party represents most of the richest counties in America (nearly all of them around DC), I wonder what effect this class warfare will have on their local races. But, then again, progressivism has always been a white rich person obsession, so maybe none of the class warfare rhetoric matters, because those rich people know that they don’t mean them.

      1. I suspect plenty of rich progressives are OK with the rhetoric. When their tax burdens jumps, maybe not so much. I suspect there aren’t enough to make a difference.

        1. I don’t know. The Democrats keep trying to push for the state income tax exemption to be re-introduced. I have a feeling that their upper crust base has a lot to do with that.

          1. Its probably a lot of pressure from the state-level party too. Without the exemption state-level Democrats will have a hard time against Republicans who promise to reduce state income taxes (since they aren’t able to subsidize their high state taxes at the expense of federal taxes)

    2. It just makes it funny to watch though. Nothing like a politician stepping out of a black Range Rover motorcade and shaking his fist in defense of the working class. The right hand, though. The left hand has the Patek Philippe on it and you don’t want to subject that to any undue shock or vibration.

    3. Maybe, but not a long term option. In each phase of class war, the evil top segment either gets eliminated or beat on so much that the political payoff is diminished. So this year the bad guys are the 1%, next year the 5%, and so on, until people who now are anywhere above median find themselves cast as evil-doers.

      1. For those with short term memory loss, look up the percentage of taxpayers the AMT was sold as affecting, and the percentage actually affected.
        The song remains the same – – – –

  8. Democrats hate EVERYBODY when they’re not Democrats. Wealth has nothing to do with the hating, just changes the excuse they give for the hate.

    1. We don’t hate middle-class white high-school graduates with weird little nubs where penises are supposed to be (real amuricans), we just want to build a wall to keep them out of our neighborhoods.

      1. Tony triggered…again.

      2. Tony being blatantly racist…again.

        1. Only noticing racism when it’s against white people is like only noticing the weather when it’s snowing in New Zealand.

          1. What does that have to do with you actually engaging in racism?

            1. It’s not racism to mention the existence of white people, snowflake.

              1. What does that have to do with the racism you engaged in Tiny Tony?

                1. Everyone’s a little bit racist.

                  1. So now that you finally admit you’re a racist, why would anyone care what you think.

                    Fuck, you’re so stupid that you got 250k in student loans and aren’t an M.D.

                    AND you admit you’re a racist.

                    You couldn’t be less credible if you were me.

                  2. Racism is bad. Unless, of course, you’re racist against white people. Then you’re good.

                    Am I doing this right, Tony?

                    1. Pretty much.

                      Don’t know why people think this is so difficult.

                    2. Then you support someone saying:

                      Racism is bad. Unless, of course, you’re racist against black people. Then you’re good.

                    3. You were so close!

                    4. What did I do wrong? Did I pick the wrong color?

                      This is confusing. Wish I could just not judge someone by the color of their skin.

                    5. Unfortunately you can’t, and pretending that you can is how we get into these messes.

                    6. Ah. I think I’m getting it now. I need to judge (not just notice but actually judge) someone by the color of their skin. But I can only negatively judge white people, correct? Not sure why I can only be racist towards white people but hey, if this is the rule then I need to follow it

                    7. I hate explaining things. Sigh.

                      It’s about power dynamics. White people are never, ever harmed by racism against white people. Black people’s entire lives exist under the cloud of fewer opportunities and even shorter lifespans because of racism against them.

                      Punch up when you joke, not down.

                    8. I think you’re right. Reverse discrimination is a fantasy dreamt up by white racists (white and racist, redundant I know). White people are never at a disadvantage in college admissions, there are no perverse incentives to hire minorities over whites, and it’s perfectly safe for a white person to walk the streets at night in Compton because hey, being white means you’re above harm just by being white

                    9. So which race would you prefer to be other than white so you could live the good life?

                    10. I wish I was a lesbian Native American. College would have been a lot cheaper for one, getting hired on after college would have been a lot easier, free tribal money would be awesome, and I could stomp my feet all I wanted screaming, “Racism! Sexism! Homophobia!”

                    11. Anyone else notice how so-called progressives make absurd generalizations and then, faced with a good-faith counter argument, start deflecting by trying to make it personal?

                    12. You know you can be whatever you want to be these days. Get a sex change and you could be a lesbian.

                    13. All I wanted was to be a non-racist person but, according to you, not only is that impossible but in fact it’s better to be racist against a certain group of people.

                    14. Not better, just sometimes funny. Making fun of white people is fun, sometimes. Making fun of black people can also be fun, but unless you are an extremely skilled comedian, it’s best to be black while doing it.

                      The only problem here is that the only kind of racism you care about are minuscule, harmless slights against white people while entire other races are actually suffering and you don’t give the slightest narrow shit about them.

                    15. I think the biggest difference between me and you is I don’t give a shit about what race a person is. I also don’t make generalizations about whites, blacks, browns, whatever. I view someone as a unique individual. And I don’t think you can get past the ills of racism by changing who can be racist against whom.

                      You, on the other hand, are primarily focused on a person’s race, not who they are as a person. You view people collectively based on skin color. How this is progress I haven’t a clue; history is full of this kind of abhorrent thinking.

                    16. Dude. Tony assured you the harms against you are slight. Your perceptions about you as whitey are less important than POC perceptions about you. Just realize you’re evil and move on because intent never matters. Your intent will be told to you.

          2. Racism against white people is openly, repeatedly, and proudly practiced amongst your ilk. It is ubiquitous, and no longer surpriisng, much less clever. It is the on;y type of racism practiced openly and proudly, unless you consider wearing hoop earrings and slit floral print prom dresses racism, which, again, your ilk seems to confuse with the real thing

          3. Further proof of climate change?

      3. weird little nubs where penises are supposed to be

        Careful Tony. That sounds transphobic. Many transmen don’t have penises or testicles at all. You’re not saying their bodies are “weird” are you? In fact, according to science men without penises are just as masculine as you are.

        #TransMenAreMen

        1. Some men without penises are much more masculine than I am.

          1. Did you learn that from experience?

            1. Actually many lesbians are more masculine than I. I know from the experience of being an innocent bystander caught in the middle of one of their bar brawls.

              1. Sounds toxic.

              2. Bar brawling isn’t ‘masculine’.

      4. I don’t know why you came in and insulted Transmen. They’re good folk.

      5. So walls work now?

  9. Democrats don’t like white males. Thanks to all the immigration over the last 50+ years it’s all about identity politics now.

    1. Damn all the womyn and blacks immigrating here!!!

  10. In Illinois the dems berated Gov. Bruce Rauner as an out of touch billionaire (he’s worth considerably much less) Then they ran Jumbo Butt Pritzker an actual billionaire who is on tape trying to buy a government job from former Gov Rob Blagojevich and who schemed on his property taxes to save 40 grand on one of his mansions. But he’s the bestest thing since sliced cheese. He is now scheming to sock it to Illinois taxpayers with a progressive income tax.

    1. Should be noted that like Schultz, Rauner was a self-made millionaire. Whereas Pritzker never worked a day in his life.

  11. “”Democrats should do the pragmatic thing in 2020 and wage a vicious class war.””

    And this is why the Democrats will lose again in 2020.

    They really need to stop believing their own press pieces and figure out some reality.

  12. All this soak the rich BS is exactly that, they aren’t going to enact a wealth tax without a bunch of very loose loopholes available to only the donor class. Your IRA, 401k savings and other non-income assets is the cheese these rats are after.

    1. You’re worth a million on paper, so they gotta take that away from you even though you’re still earning a wage just like every Joe Blow.

    2. No it isn’t. People are totally deluded about the actual distribution of wealth in this country. Even when they are animated by inequality, they talk almost exclusively about income inequality. Income inequality is nothing compared to wealth inequality – and income inequality does not lead to wealth inequality. They are very different things. The change in discussion topic here is game-changing. The Clinton/Obama Dem party is dead. And that will change the Rep party too though don’t know how yet.

      Eight people – six American – own more than the 4 billion people at the bottom. Ignore the specific policy stuff – and the obvious political sides that will be drawn on the basis of emotional manipulation of the issue. Merely informing people how different actual reality is from what we THINK it is – as here – is gonna upend a ton of beliefs we take for granted right now. Beliefs of Dems, of Reps, of everyone.

      Talking about wealth taxes means they are actually going after the wealthy now. For the same reason Willie Sutton gave when asked why he robbed banks – cuz that’s where the money is. And no – me pointing this out does not mean I favor/oppose anything. I just be da messenger and am getting the popcorn ready for the show.

      1. That’s all it is is talk. No wealth tax proposal is going past $100 million dollar Nancy Pelosi without major loopholes for $100 million dollar Paul Pelosi. Most of this wealth that that those six Americans own were created in the past 30 years, it wasn’t plundered. If all the wealth was divided evenly in a few years there would be six or seven people again owning the vast majority of wealth and the 4 billion would again be living in the mud and their own feces.
        An example, When Cortez was marauding through Mexico they split up the loot evenly. The other the Conquistadors were disgusted with the small shares and didn’t claim them. Cortez had their loot thrown behind a curtain where he later divided that between him and a few of his captains. Hernando became a very rich man.

        1. I think you are underestimating the ‘danger’ of even mere talk.

          Obviously the specific Sanders BS is gonna go nowhere. Talking about something in public for the first time though means people make the attempt to learn more and changes the way people think about issues. The Albany Congress (1st time colonies all met together) made the Stamp Act Congress (colonies met to respond to a specific) possible which made the Continental Congress (ultimately declares independence and starts a war) possible.

          And re wealth – people are going to be surprised at how rigged the game has become. That’s it. What they choose to do with that knowledge – well that’s something else that will play out however it plays out. But if you know how rigged the game is – you know how dangerous tolerating even the talk is. Sunlight is not what the wealthy are seeking right now.

  13. If the ultra rich are going to support the party that claims they want to hang them I’m willing to chip in for the rope.

  14. But…but…rich Democrats are woke. So they’re okay.

  15. There is nothing wrong with allowing the left to have millionaires and billionaires in their party and hate other millionaire and billionaire of the reactionary wing of the political spectrum.
    The left’s wealthy has done everything right. They have accumulated their wealth and recognize that only through the redistribution of other people’s wealth can we achieve the proletariat paradise we all covet so deeply.
    The left’s rich will be able to keep their money, privileges and status as a reward for their undying fidelty and prudence in recognizing socialism is the answer to all of man’s problems…for a while.
    Then, like the rest of the capitalist swine, the left’s wealth will be redistributed for the good of The State and the ruling elites so they can become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and enjoy all the splendor and joys money can provide.
    Then the leftist millionaires and billionaires will join their fascist friends in the gulags where both will receive the necessary enlightened indoctrination and brainwashing into the joys of socialist dictatorship via torture, rape, starvation and random shooting of prisoners as prescribed by Saint Stalin.
    Life won’t get any better than this.

  16. At least we didn’t get a president who windsurfed.

    I don’t care how rich they are as long as they’re not demented psychopathic racist traitor morons.

    1. “I don’t care how rich they are as long as they’re not demented psychopathic racist traitor morons.”

      That sort of disqualifies the entire Democratic field apart from Tulsi

    2. Well that only leaves five or six people in the US and they’re all underage.

      1. Don’t sell your president short.

    3. The Party of slavery are not full of psychopathic racist traitor morons?

      Slave owners who shoot at a federal fort after seceding from the Union, sure are something.

      1. You have the knowledge of American history of, oh I dunno, choosing a non-American nationality out of a hat, let’s say Russian who skimmed a middle school text on the subject.

        1. And you have the knowledge of a person who took out 250k worth of loans and isn’t subsequently a neurosurgeon.

          1. A lot of people have a mortgage and aren’t neurosurgeons dude. But you have no idea what a relief it is to have no student loans to pay off what with my full ride. SAT day was a good day to me. Sort of like the day you brought radiant joy to your parents’ faces when you finally made it to the toilet in time during your “they don’t make diapers in his size” phase.

            1. What does that have to do with your 250k student loans Tiny Tony?

            2. ok. that is actually funny

                1. I’m not going to employ my underclothes in puppetry just so you can understand what’s going on.

                  Oh all right, I’m such a softie. Hi, Tulpa, I’m Tony’s sock. Did you scrub your underarms real good today?

        2. You forgot to mention how all the racists became Republicans after the Rs supported the Civil Rights Act in greater numbers than Democrats.

          It’s important to get that out there lest people persist in thinking Dems are the racist party. Prog harder dude!

          1. I don’t know why people can’t simply use their god-given senses to figure out which party is the racist party today.

            1. It’s the same one, the target race has changed.

              1. You poor little thing. Here, have some bootstraps.

              2. The one that is totally, Completely OBSESSED with race. The one that immediately identiifies not only friend and foe alike primarily by their race, but also their thoughts as “authentically” of a race or not. The one that tries to keep Asians out of college based on their race. The one that thinks Race is the same as Religion or Nationality. The one that thinks race explains and excuses bad behavior

            2. Just upthread you admitted to being racist, claiming it was a natural, good thing. I don’t even need to use my god-given senses, I have your own word to go off of.

              1. You are like a brick fucking wall. I never said it was good. Only that it was nuanced.

                Speaking of walls, one party wants to build a very expensive one for the sole delusional purpose of convincing white people that we’re stemming the flow of Mexican DNA into our national gene pool.

                1. Riiight. There’s no other reason besides racism for a nation to want to control its borders.

                  You’re a simple-minded creep.

                  1. We have another land border you know. More terrorists use that one, in fact. Why no wall there, I wonder?

                    1. Because, you simple minded fool, the majority of *illegal* immigration comes from the southern border. Do you think it’s immoral to control *illegal* immigration?

                      Forgot — in your mind anything that disproportionately affects a favored minority class must be because of racism. Which is funny because you’re probably the most racist person on these threads.

                    2. The majority of illegal immigration happens by airplanes.

                    3. You mean by people overstaying their visas? Doesn’t seem right — can you give me your source?

                    4. Nevermind, I don’t care that you just made that up. Point is you’re ignoring my question: Do you think it’s immoral to control illegal immigration?

                2. Stemming the flow of Mexican DNA is a longstanding position of both Republican and Democratic parties. I’m not saying I agree with it but you’re being willfully dishonest here.

  17. The problem with people like Schultz is that he earned his money through the evil capitalist system wherein he exploited workers and customers to selfishly enrich himself.

    Beto and John Kerry obtained their millions the morally virtuous way. They married into them.

  18. dHoward Schultz’s very favorite Democrat of the past 50 years, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ($60 million)

    Hey Matt ! Lay off Coffee Boy. Trump needs a 45+ state Electoral College landslide in 2020.

  19. This is – what – the dozenth article in the last week specifically about the wealth tax proposals? Kinda funny.

    Did the Reason donors issue a diktat? Stomp on this bug NOW or I’ll cut off your allowance

  20. LOL @ the idea of the Democrats attempting to don the working class mantle, when they support very high levels of immigration!

  21. Class warfare: at least it’s original.

  22. Since libertarians like Reason, Cato, even Lew Rockwell refuse to stand up for the rule of law and unpack the complex but still discernible Title 26 IRS Code for what it actually is, ie a classical liberal populist tax not just on the rich, but those rich who earn their fortunes through federal piivilege, we can expect no real pushback against the onslought of anti wealth propaganda. Those who earn their money in a free market under the Code are exempt from taxation. Those who profit from the exploitation of a federal privilege for profit are the targets of the income tax. See we.losthorizons.com

  23. If so, snipers are going to first have to take out some of the party’s own 2020 presidential candidates. The estimated worth of Michael Bloomberg, for example, is $47.6 billion, good for 14th place on the planet.

    Michael Bloomberg is also not a potential Democratic nominee for president, no matter how much you try to claim he is.

  24. I will pay attention to Bernie, Nancy, and the other socialists when they allow the poor to use the many rooms in their many houses, and donate all but $15.00/hr of their salary to a veteran’s charity.
    Oh yeah; and take an ACA health policy – – – – –

    Until then, I call bullshit.

    1. This makes no sense at all

  25. John Kerry: Couldn’t best W.

    1. Anomalous year. Remember how W. got all that credit and goodwill for not preventing 9/11?

      1. Democrats didn’t stand a chance, even with Frankenstein.

        What, with democracy and all.

        1. The one year the Republican won the popular vote since people were wearing leg warmers as fashion.

          1. Losers whine about the popular vote.

            1. If the shoe were on the other foot Republicans would be burning the constitution on a bonfire.

              1. And Democrats would be rolling their eyes.

                1. I’d feel very disturbed if my candidates could only win by being the least popular candidate. I’m truly thankful I don’t have to deal with that.

                  1. You’ve found the silver lining for losers.

                    1. And you’re doing buttwork for Republicans for some reason.

                    2. Tony, reality stopped by my house today.

                      It wanted me to tell you:

                      It still doesn’t care about your work on the internet.

                    3. Oh good. Things we do on the internet never follow us into real life, do they?

                    4. Not when it comes to affecting political outcomes.

                      Well, especially you.

                  2. Thank goodness someone saw the “mischief of factions” when we tried pure democracy before Twitter was invented.

                    1. When was “pure democracy” tried? Oh you just made it up? Thanks for playing

                    2. Fearless Truthteller|1.31.19 @ 7:36PM|#
                      “When was “pure democracy” tried?”

                      It’s called ‘mob rule’, for ignoramuses like you who assume it has to be organized.
                      Is that simple enough for an idiot like you to understand, or do you need it in fewer syllables?

                    3. Every gang rape is true democracy.

                  3. So second place in the popular vote is “the least popular” despite there being dozens of candidates who got fewer votes than Trump

                    I’d feel very disturbed if I was as blind as you are

              2. Like when we were told that there was a lock on the Electoral College, from 2008 up until 6:59PM on 11/8/2016

  26. Democrat politicians don’t believe what they’re saying. They just want to appeal to people who are dumb/angry enough to believe what they’re saying.

  27. Reason magazine HATES government subsidies… but accepts them as a money-losing, non-for-profit tax exempt organization. Glass houses, you hypocrites

    1. Yeah because not getting taxed is a subsidy. Why has there been such an influx of retards here recently?

      1. Fearless Truthteller|1.31.19 @ 7:35PM|#
        “Reason magazine HATES government subsidies… but accepts them as a money-losing, non-for-profit tax exempt organization. Glass houses, you hypocrites”

        Did you show up to prove how stupid you are?

      2. Reason made fun of Bernie.

  28. One question:

    Since when do we count the “net worth” of a husband and wife separately?

    I’m not sure I’ve ever heard it done that way. Hillary has $15 million. Bill has $80 million…

    Is that just a tacit acknowledgement of their clearly separate lives?

  29. The cited examples are in the (D) party much in the same way Schultz was; in name only, harkening to a simpler, less toothy time.

  30. This would be a good article if it was not pure propaganda. The fact is that many people who do vote for Democrats are uneasy about their choices. It’s not as if there are waves of non-rich Democrats lining up to run for higher office. And when they do the mainstream media ignores them or they get slammed by the Daily Caller or some other mindless right-wing organization. And then there is the idiotic generalizing that goes on by articles like this. Yes, Elizabeth Warren has millions but much of it is saved up in retirement accounts and based off of book deals. This is exponentially different than many other millionaires and billionaires who live off of economic rent, and in Trump’s case, through scams and money laundering. She is also not an heiress nor did she marry into a rich family. These things matter. To be a democrat does not mean you reject all inequality. That’s only a hardcore portion on the left.

    It’s good to write articles like these because we should always push people to be more logically consistent. But please don’t write them in such a glib, superficial manner. It just smacks of propaganda.

    1. Oh Wow, The Daily Caller slams potential D candidates. That is awful, AWFUL. I can’t imagine the outsized influence the Daily Caller has on our elections. I’m just glad Republicans are never subjected to any slamming

  31. I thought Kerry was just a gigolo who married into wealth? What did he do to bag himself a net worth of $200 million?

    What’s Barry ‘how much is enough at some point?’ Obama’s net worth these days?

  32. Tony rambles on three years on about pop. vote. I look forward to the day how his tune goes if a Rep. wins the pop. vote. It’s not like lefties have principles so I suspect silence or a shift in goal posts.

    Democrat history begins in 1990. See? No more racism! That way they can go back, erase and rewrite history as they see it through their demented minds.

  33. The Marxist Dems hate the rich until they come forth with campaign dollars.

  34. It’s unfortunate, Matt, that you are a youngster still wet behind the ears. I’m 80 and I have see the dumbing-down of the GOP since the 1960’s beginning with their Southern Strategy to capture the racist rednecks. The ultimate act thus far occurred with the 2016 election when the deplorables and other shallow thinkers elected the 10 billion dollar successful businessman, Donald Trump. Were they ever hoodwinked!

    You said, “Complicating any class-war plans is the fact that the 13 richest congressional districts in the country, and 41 of the top 50, are now represented by Democrats. The presidential voting preference among the top 4 percent flipped Democratic in 2012 for the first time in a half-century and hasn’t looked back since. If there’s a party of the rich, it’s not the GOP.”

    If intelligence can be equated with the ability to earn and accumulate wealth then it is obvious why your analysis of voting patterns is so spot-on. Being rich equates with intelligence, and Republicans are just dumb and dumber.

    1. Ah, I finally understand Democrats:
      They’re all senile!

  35. And Republicans Hate Wealthy Candidates…When They’re Not Republicans. Hell Republicans hate wealthy people period if the wealthy person is a liberal. They call them “limousine liberals” and any rich liberal is automatically “out of touch” with the American people, unlike the multi billionaire who flies around in his own private 757.

    1. “They call them “limousine liberals” and any rich liberal is automatically “out of touch” with the American people, unlike the multi billionaire who flies around in his own private 757.”

      Perhaps Democrats would find more success if, instead of getting triggered and defensive, they asked themselves why that’s so true?

  36. Republicans have been engaged in class warfare for years. Or have you not noticed that rich people, I mean “job creators”, are Gods while low income people are takers, moochers who think the government owes them a living?

    Oh, and if a company goes belly up guess who’s responsible for that according to the Republicans. The ones who are actually running the company? Nope, the ones responsible for the company when it goes belly up are the workers, just ask the ones who worked for Hostess, the ones who had their pensions stolen by the executives.

  37. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…….www.2citypays.com

  38. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+.. >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  39. Shorter: Democrats Hate

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.